Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 10/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 24 Nov 1999 21:59:44 -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 10/35 (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-10 (5A)  18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE - Q & A PERIOD

ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE - QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

A lecture given on 18 July 1958

[Based on the clearsound version only.]

How many expect to be there at the end of today? Okay. How
about it, Instructors?

Male voice: Yep.

How many people are you going to have left in the TRs at
the end of this week?

Male voice: They're all out.

How many people are going to go back in, I should have said?

Male voice: Sixty or zero.

Either one, huh?

Male voice: I don't know.

All right. We're not above throwing you back into the TRs.

Male voice: That's right.

So don't feel too complacent at having gotten out of it.
All you've got to do is put your spine into a corkscrew
shape, confront with your right shoelace and not correct it
three or four times when asked to do so and you'll have had
it!

Why? Because obviously, obviously auditing or auditing
positions are uncomfortable to you. It's not punishment.
We're trying to groove you down.

You'd be surprised what a joy it is to somebody or some
group, somebody who knows nothing about it at all, to watch
a good auditor, a good pro, at work with a preclear. I'm
always amazed at how a totally strange group of people -
unless they've got some nut in their midst who is
restimulated or something of the sort - will sit around and
how quiet they will be and for how long, observing a rather
inconsequential session. Have you ever noticed this?

Audience: Yes.

Yeah.

Well, what they're impressed by, although they are
apparently interested in the replies of the preclear -
what they're really impressed by is the professional
attitude of the auditor and how he goes about his work
and his thoroughness and efficiency in the whole thing.
That impresses the living daylights out of them. But it
impresses them to such a degree they don't even look at it.
No more than your preclear looks at it. He sort of takes it
for granted sort of thing. And the better it is the more he
takes it for granted. The more natural or real or the way
it should be it seems to them, you know?

And I ran into this first, by the way, just before the
first book was published. I had my first surprise about
this sort of thing.

I was invited up to an apartment in New York City where
there were several bigwigs of one kind or another. You
know, people who are prominent, newspaper syndicate
features and that sort of thing, and they were there, and
in the arts. And it was just a party. And somebody got me
talking about Dianetics. And somebody persuaded me to run
an engram on somebody. So I picked out a likely subject and
threw him down on the couch, you know, and proceeded to run
an engram.

It turned out to be one of the more vicious engrams I could
have selected. And although it wasn't terribly dramatic
from a standpoint of agony and pain, there was quite a bit
of comm lag mixed up in it, you know? The fellow was pretty
anaten, pretty fogged out as he was running it. But it
wasn't a prenatal or birth or something that you would
consider a headline attraction, you know? It was just
something stupid like a tonsillectomy or something like
that, you know?

And by golly, all these people sat there in the room
watching this and for about two hours and a half, why, a
pin drop would have scared them half to death. This was
very interesting to me and I had to take a look at this,
you know? What I was doing was not very interesting from
a standpoint of a performance. And what the preclear was
doing - the preclear wasn't being very interesting
either - compared to preclears I had audited.

If it gets too dramatic you can expect the group, perhaps,
to dramatize. That will occasionally occur. It occurred one
time at 42 Aberdeen Road. After we left the address, 42
Aberdeen Road, the owner of the property had moved back
into it, and some auditor decided that he had better go
over and tell them something about Dianetics, smooth them
out somehow or other. They were upset because the property
had so many people in it. It was just my home, you see? The
property had had an awful lot of people in it. They hadn't
wrecked it or messed it up.

So this auditor starts to show them what Dianetics was all
about, and threw the husband of the family back into birth
and ran it. Got about halfway through and the fellow was
going into convulsions and so forth and having a perfectly
wonderful time. At which time the wife and about three or
four of the friends there begged the auditor to stop and
practically threw him out of the house and got down, "Oh,
my poor, dear friend!" you know, and all that sort of a
thing to this guy that was halfway through birth.

We never heard the end of this, and we don't know what
happened to the fellow after that, you know? We haven't a
clue. I imagine he had colds and things for a few weeks.
They usually settle out in ten days at the most.

But here was a case of a really dramatic show. Big show.
Well, it was too much for that particular audience.

Now, I've put on some rather quiet shows. Like, you know,
I'd just sit down and audit somebody on ARC Straightwire.
And I swear people sit around by the hour watching me run
ARC Straightwire. And you've had the same experience, I'm
sure, running some rather mild process on somebody and
having other people sit there just as attentive and just as
interested in what was going on. Fascinating. Every once in
a while one of them answer one of the commands to themselves.

Well, all I'm trying to point up is what their attention is
really on. Their attention is on your perfection in the
TRs. And the more perfect you are and the better
easy-command-of-the-situation show you put on, why, the
better and more intense their interest is. It's quite
interesting.

So good auditing occurs when it occurs. You give good TRs
with good intention, running along the line, with good
interest in the preclear, running sufficiently easily so
that there's no apparent strain anywhere in the environment
on the thing, and boy, you've got it made as far as the
preclear's concerned. And the test of it, of course, is
that an audience, a number of other people in the room,
will watch you with great fascination; watch what's happening.

All right. This is your period, not mine. What questions do
you have? Yes, Adele?

Female voice: What do we do if we've begun running present
time problems on chronic conditions? Drop them?

Present time problem on a chronic condition. Well, you have
no business running a present time problem on a chronic
condition for this reason: A present time problem process,
of course, is what it is: "What part of that problem could
you be responsible for?" And you should bridge it over as
rapidly as possible into one that will produce an effect.
And then, watch out, because you're generally running right
straight on the Rock.

I haven't taken up Rocks very much. But Rocks have tabs on
them that stick out in plain sight. And one of them is a
chronic condition.

Female voice: What if it's already produced an effect in
somatics?

It's all right. You've got to flatten it. You understand
that, "What part of that limb (or something or other) could
you be responsible for?" isn't a - I trust you were not
saying, "What part of that problem could you be responsible
for?" You're undoubtedly saying, "What part of that limb
could you be responsible for?"

Female voice: We're using "that problem."

Hm?

Female voice: We're using "that problem."

That problem. Well, it isn't a problem - which is putting
a lie into the session the whole distance. You just better
slip it right over to "that terminal."

But this thing producing effects, producing somatics, and
so forth, the general rule is that when a process is
producing change you continue to run it. So I think that
short of disastrous occurrence of some kind or another, you
would have to go on and flatten that and then get off of it
as rapidly as possible. And then come back to it with its
proper process which is Help.

Female voice: Thank you.

Answer the question?

Female voice: Thank you.

All right. Yes?

Male voice: Ron, what's happened to the old, "Build a
future," as far as goals are concerned? Does that take too
long or something?

I said there's a Goals Process. Of course, that is it.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

On actual test - on actual test against profiles, the process
run does not produce as much gain as the other processes
you will run, and actually doesn't change the person's
goals as fast as other processes. So it is merely - it's a
good process, it just happens to be weaker than what you
can do.

Speaking of old processes, you'll be interested to know
that - first day, I think, of this last congress, why, the
head of the Kansas City group fell off a roof and broke his
back. And they - family hastily sent Nile and Mary a wire to
please come back and do something. And Nile came up and saw
me and I asked him whether or not they had anybody there
that could do anything. And yes, there was somebody there
that could do anything. So I just told him to have this
person run some Havingness on the fellow if he could, you
know. And then to go back after the congress. Well Mary
went back after the congress. She just got back to town and
she's got this fellow with feeling in his legs and got him
on the road, got his temperature down, got him squared
around. He's living. He's also taking his work - his office
work - is being brought in to him so he can do it in the
hospital. And then he's bound and determined now that he
will get on a plane as soon as he can and come in to the
HGC and get some intensives and get this broken back
straightened out.

All right. Now, she ran out of and pretty well flattened a
couple of processes that I gave Nile, which were fairly
standard processes, you know? Some Havingness and I think
it was "Invent - invent a person with a broken back and what
problem he could pose." I think that was it. And she ran
these pretty flat; she didn't know where to go then. She
picked up the old one: "What could you change?" and "What
could you leave unchanged?" Well, that's way off the track
and way from behind, but it's still a good, powerful
process. And this one, for heaven's sakes, shook out his
evident goals. See? And his goals were - he was so busy;
he wanted to come back to the HGC. I'd offered him some
auditing and he wanted to come back to the HGC, but he
couldn't because of his family commitments and his business
and all of that sort of thing, so he fell off a roof and
broke his back. Isn't this - isn't this wild? That's what
Mary reported on the thing, at least. But anyway, he's in
much better shape.

But here's your goals. Now, there's goals shaking out of an
old-time standby - still good.

Male voice: One further point on that, Ron. When you get
the preclear to establish a goal, I usually find it's a
good policy to establish whether it's real to the preclear
that he or she can work towards this in the session.

That's all part of the chitter-chat.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

That's right. That's adding the certainty.

Male voice: Good.

You'll find - you'll find that goals become pointless if
you don't check them at session end.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

So you're stuck with remembering what the preclear's goal
was for that session, and whether he made it or not,
checking whether or not he at least accomplished something
toward it. And this puts time on the auditing time track.

Male voice: Uh-huh. Yes.

There are many ways that you can run goals, is what I was
trying to say with all this dissertation about this chap.
There are many ways that you could run goals. There are
many ways that you could arrive at goals. And in the final
analysis if a person doesn't have some goals and if you
don't treat it one way or the other, he probably will just
miss some large percentage of his auditing benefit. It's a
catalyst rather than a process.

Male voice: Yeah. I see.

Yes?

Female voice: Ron, I was one of the fortunate people who
stayed back and had another two days to look at the TRs.

Oh, yeah? Good.

Female voice: And I found something very interesting: That
a coach if he promoted terrific ARC with you could flunk
you hardest, fastest and best. But if there wasn't any or
very much ARC, you could beat him pretty near every time. I
found that very interesting.

That's a very interesting observation.

What other questions are there?

Yes, Rick?

Male voice: Could you consider affinity as willingness to
confront?

That could be part of infinity - affinity. "Willingness to
be" is a better definition.

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet. Yes?

Male voice: Would you define problem?

Problem. Postulate-counter-postulate. Terminal-counter-
terminal. An unresolved and opposed set of considerations
would define a problem. A problem is relatively uncomputable
when first viewed and it is not computable as long as it
remains in perfect balance. Some other factors or
considerations must be added or subtracted from a problem
that is a real killer as a problem before the thing resolves.

And the way you unbalance a problem is quite interesting.
It is a problem as long as postulate-counter-postulate
apparently has equal and opposite postulate force, you see?
So that - well, I'll give you one; I'll give you one right
straight off my case. I seldom use my case. Scarce. Valuable.

It's been my consideration for a long time that individuals
most failed in the research in the field of the mind when
they predicated everything they were doing on their cases
only and never found out whether or not there was anything
else in the universe. And so I try not to do it. But this
one - this one is amusing to me because I never saw such
a complete this-met-that and neither one of them had any
difference of weight and they were both totally opposed.

And this was the problem: If you trained somebody to use a
sword, he would undoubtedly use a sword and get himself
knocked off. If you trained somebody to be a scholar and a
man of peace, he would undoubtedly run into somebody with a
sword and get knocked off.

And we used to have a saying in France: The value of a
cassock and a cross against wolves was that they marked
where the body had been devoured. Wolves will not eat brass
or linen.

Now, there was a hell of a problem, if you look this thing
over. You made this fellow a man of peace and, of course,
he never would become involved with the upsets and so on of
combat and swordsmanship and valiance and chivalry and all
of this sort of thing; he'd never have anything to do with
that. So, therefore, apparently he would be safe, but he
wouldn't be safe. But if you trained him to a sword, of
course you were training him to an inevitable death. And
these two things were totally counter-opposed. Whether
sensibly or not, that was another thing, see? But they were
totally counter-opposed.

I looked at these things and it just didn't, you know,
didn't compute. The question, then, every time I'd
evidently trained a boy or a son or a person, you know,
this question would come up. And it was always a
disappointing answer because you knew the end product of
the answer. Either way you answered it, why, he was dead.
And so it was in those wild times, you see? And it had
evidently been going along - I'd evidently had that thing
just generation after generation after generation, see,
just riding along. The ethical, moral responsibility of
training. That's all it - all it's conceived itself to
surround.

Naturally the answer to it is terribly simple, which fell
out of the hamper on the next three or four auditing
questions. Just bang. The answer to it's rather obvious.
But because some of you may have the problem I won't bother
to answer it.

A problem is composed of factors which are apparently -
underscore apparently - unreconcilable. Apparently, you see?
You have two truths of comparable magnitude which contradict
each other. And there is the general run of problems.

Yes?

Male voice: One more point. How would you apply this with a
preclear? Would you get him to get some understanding of this?

Well, that comes under the definition of the problem. We're
going to take that up some more - next lecture. Defining the
problem. Every few commands you should get him to define
the problem, and the next thing you know the problem falls
apart. But if you don't get him to define the problem and
you just keep using the word problem, why, he's liable to
drift off onto other problems, or all kinds of vagaries occur.

Male voice: So, you'd...

Yes. So you'd get the problem redefined several times.

Yes?

Female voice: Ron, this thing you mentioned now - if you're
running a present time problem and this gets started on a
chain into the past and you hit the Rock or very near the
Rock and...

Which you will.

Female voice:... which we have, yes.

Which you will.

Female voice: Yeah. All right.

No, if you overrun it, you will.

Female voice: Yes. But then what are you going to do if
"What part of that problem could you be responsible for?"
cannot possibly handle the huge, big condition, situation
halfway...

All right. I've got that taped fortunately.

Female voice: Yes. But are we going to sit and do ARC drills?

Now, wait a minute. I'm going to - I'm going to show you -
I'm going to show you where this thing is taped and you will
see that it is taped.

Female voice: Yeah.

Getting him to define the problem handles it. This will
occur every time a little auditing error is made. Things
don't become a problem to people unless they have been a
problem to people, you might say, at this late stage of a
case. So you always can count on the fact that if you
overrun a problem or do this little thing wrong, you will
always go back into the past with the problem.

And that is, you make him define his terminals of this
problem. Then you make him define the problem often and the
terminals some more. You got this? Now, this continues his
attention on the physical universe aspect of this. And you
thank him very much and acknowledge the living daylights
out of him every time this reminds him of anything. And you
don't let him get reminded. You might say you forcefully
keep him boosted into PT.

And there are several mechanisms. First of these mechanisms
is to get the terminals defined, of the problem. What are
the terminals involved?

Now take the ethical, moral training problem I just gave
you, see, as an actual one that I did find myself on my own
case. All right. Now, don't think for a moment that this
wouldn't underlie any PT problem that had to do with
training. You get the idea? To some slight degree any
modern training problem would be a lock on this thing. So
all an auditor would have to do, would be to let me wander
in a session that way, slightly into the past and get
reminded of something, without acknowledging it within an
inch of my life, and I would have been right straight back
into the time this problem occurred, which was 1125.

Now the next thing is to get him to define the problem
often as you run it. "Now, exactly what is the problem?"
This is the cliche that an auditor uses. See? "Exactly what
is the problem now?" And he will define it for you once
more. Now if he defines it by running into the past, no -
"So what are the terminals involved with this present time
problem - this present time problem?" See? "What are the
terminals involved with it?"

And he says, "Well, it's my wife and the chauffeur. And
that reminds me..."

You say, "Well now, your wife, you say, your wife. Now,
what's she look like?"

"Oh, so-and-so and so-and-so," see?

"And the chauffeur, how long has he been working for you?
Oh, that's fine. And he's working for you right now or has
he left?" See? Zuuup, see, right up here. And don't let him
slip. Don't let him slip. Because every PT problem, if it
is a severe PT problem to a person, is based on a chain to
which there's a basic. And the command which you're using
is purposely a little bit light so that it won't tend to go
into the past too far.

Female voice: Well, now, that's fine, but can I just ask
something else?

Mm-hm.

Female voice: All right. Well now, number one, how about if
this has already occurred and you have the junk around the
Rock or something near in restim and you're trying to run
this one; and if so, are we going to just try and push this
to one side so that we can run a bit of ARC Straightwire
drills?

You can always bring a person on up to PT. You can always
bring a person up to present time. Communication as a
process will bring the person to present time. "What part
of that problem could you be responsible for?" if it has
drifted into the past, is no more than communicating. It's
as-ising some of it, but it is still merely communicating,
isn't it?

Female voice: Yeah, if the preclear can answer it. You see,
if it is a problem, but if it's a huge messy condition and
they are utterly confused.

Well, there's still a part of it he can be responsible for.
He may comm lag like mad, but there's still a part of it he
can be responsible for. He can still be responsible for
having gotten into it in the first place or having sat down
in that auditing chair as they'll sometimes tell you bitterly.

Now listen: It's a communication process and therefore
cycles just like ARC Straightwire. And if you permitted it
to go into the past, it'll cycle back up to the present,
and the thing for you to do is grab the brass ring as the
present goes by. That's right, see? The present will
reoccur again if you watch it, and if you don't two-way
comm on the significances of the past with him too much. If
you just lay off that luxury and just ask him, you'll find
that a problem will cycle just like communication. Got it?

Female voice: Yeah.

It will. You don't believe me.

Female voice: Urn - well, I'm the preclear on the subject.

You're the preclear. Well, now, that's responsible for some
of this. Now, as you cycle back into this, so you will
cycle back out of it again on this particular process, if
it is continued to run.

You can leave a person parked all over the time track at
end of session, perhaps, if they are going to be run some
more. But it would be a serious thing to park a preclear in
the past with a communication type process and not bring
him up to the present if you weren't going to run it
anymore. So, "Auditing must cease at ten o'clock" gets
awfully modified by this rule: When do we get him into PT?
We've been bringing preclears into PT here now for eight
years or more. They should have been in present time. Well,
a communication process does bring them back into present
time and so does a responsibility process. But they can get
awfully messy if they slide off a PT problem and dive for
the past and hit something like the Rock. This can get
awfully messy and it can get very uncomfortable. So if
you're the pc in that particular case, I can understand
your concern.

A better one is for the auditor to carefully pick up all
these terminals as he goes. He picks up all these
terminals. What kind of terminals is this pc talking about
all this time? And you can take advantage out of any
auditing situation, no matter how bad. Who's your auditor,
by the way?

Female voice: Mauerer. But, Ron, why don't you go straight
for the Rock now? Why do we have to do this ARC? If you hit
it, why do you have to push it on one side? Do you see?

Because the Rock is not always the basic on which the
present time problem is sitting. The present time problem
may be sitting only on some side consideration or lock. You
can take somebody who has a Rock which is definitely
concerned with jewelry and get his car stolen. This will
only vaguely associate.

No, there isn't any reason to jump the gun as you'll find
in experience that by trying to bypass a PT problem and
trying to go for broke right then that you will very often
miss. Thoroughly. Because it doesn't take long to clean up
a PT problem. It doesn't take very long to clean it up. It
either cleans up or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, why,
you've got no choice but to clean it up.

Yes.

I know, "this has got to be done all at once" is very, very
much the point. But it can't be done all at once. The
present time attention of the pc in the auditing room is
one of the reasons why past locks come to the surface. The
pc's attention is so small on the auditing session that
when he hits the Rock with a present time problem in this
situation - in restimulation, he can't handle it and he tends
to go to pieces. His attention's all split up.

You audit somebody who is tired and his attention is rather
poor and you hit something beefy in the case and he just
goes wog! And you hit it when he isn't tired and it's, "So
what?" Get the idea?

Female voice: Yes.

All right. That answer it a little bit?

Female voice: Yes.

All right.

Yes?

Male voice: You're running the process, "What part of that
problem could you be responsible for?"

Right.

Male voice: Good. Now, their idea of being responsible for
a problem is solving it. I've struck people like this.

All right.

Male voice: Would the process work then or would you have
to do more about clearing the command?

Well, it would be in the realm of clearing the command now.

Male voice: Yeah.

Their definition of a problem is an awfully poor
definition. There's two - there's two definitions to a
problem which are the rougher - the rougher things to handle.
I'll give you an actual case on this if you want one. There
are two definitions for problem which are the roughest
definitions that a pc can have.

One, you have just enumerated. That's not the rougher one,
but that's one of them. And that is: A problem is something
he has to solve, see?

And the other one is: A problem is something that cannot
possibly be solved. Now, if he's got either of these
definitions when you're clearing the command, it is
allowable to make a dodge on this "What part of that
problem could you be responsible for?"

Well, actually there are about ten or twelve things you can
clear a problem with, you know? Problems of Comparable
Magnitude, Problems of Incomparable Magnitude - they are a
couple of the older ones. Asking him to communicate with
the terminals he's - you know - recall a time when he
communicated with the terminals which are involved with
this particular problem actually will bust a problem up in
a rather gentle sort of way.

But there's a killer on these two definitions. There's one
that goes like this: "Invent a woman. What's her definition
for a problem? Thank you." This preclear is a woman, let us
say, see. "Invent a woman. What's her definition for a
problem? Invent a woman. What's her definition for a
problem?" And you'll change the definition for a problem.

Now, I should say something about this. A problem is
something that can't run if it has either of these
definitions. It's worth knowing. I had a case that hung
fire for a year; wasn't my case, particularly - well, I
guess, yes, it was. Also somebody else's case, but also my
case. And this person had this definition for a problem a
year ago. And so about three, four weeks ago I picked up
the case again and found out the case hadn't gone anywhere
in auditing. Well, if flattening a present time problem can
be so violent as to keep a case from moving on an APA, then
certainly the definition of problem is something that could
hold the whole case up too. Right? Hm? So you get this idea
of what is the person's definition for a problem as either
something that has to be solved right now - and they can't
change this definition - or it's: a problem is something that
could never be solved, by definition; then, of course, on
the first one you're just going to have him collapsing the
problem on himself all the time.

Well, if these definitions don't easily shift, then they're
somebody else's definition whose valence he's grabbed hold
of. So you've got a terrific misownership on the definition,
but a pc who is not capable of shifting ownership by
responsibility. You get that?

Audience: Yeah.

All right. So the best way to handle it is to misassign or
reassign the ownership of the definition by saying,
"Another person: What's their definition?" See? All right.
"Invent another person," and "What's their definition for a
problem?" You see, you get this thing over there and they
all of a sudden take ownership or properly assign the
ownership of this definition and it just goes poof. And you
never saw anything change as fast as the definition for
"problem" when run in this particular wise.

Male voice: Is this one case where you do not accept their
first clearing of the command to be done, is it?

Well, remember, PT problem is preparation for auditing, not
auditing. You wouldn't say this is one case in auditing
where you do that. You'd say this is one point in auditing
where you've got to have orientation before auditing can occur.

All right. Their whole case is a composite of problems. It
would not be a case unless it were a composite of problems.
If the person cannot handle problems or if a person has to
solve the problems, all of them, or if the person has to
totally neglect all of the problems, their case, of course,
will not change. So it comes under the heading - it hardly
comes under the heading of clearing a command - it comes
under the heading of straightening up problems.

Now, there's a nasty trick that you can use on preclears,
just comparable to this. I'm glad you've brought this up. I
know it makes you feel uneasy to find that there are
exceptions to hidebound rules. But you must realize that a
problem is a case is a problem; a case is a problem, is
problems; and if there's something difficult with this
definition of problems completely aside from anything else,
Help will shift around to some degree. But you can also run
into a case where Help is a way of insulting somebody. And
then you audit him on Help for fifteen or twenty commands
and you say, "What is help?" and clear the command again
and the person says, "It's a way of insulting somebody."
(This, by the way, is a subject of a later lecture. I'll
give it to you now because you are running into it on
problems.)

You do this same trick. They're misowning a definition for
help so wildly that they'd have to get rid of the valence
in order to change the definition. Only you can't get up to
a process of changing the valence until you change the
definition. So there's a way to short-circuit it.

You say, "Invent a man," (we don't care what he invents -
invent a broomstick. Just invent anything - we didn't
ask him to mock anything up, we just asked him to invent
something, you know, only he usually mocks it up; we don't
care) and "What is its definition of help? Oh, thank you.
Good." And "Invent a broomstick and what is its definition
of help? Oh, thank you."

And the next thing you know you've come close enough to a
proper assignment of ownership of the thing that without
having gotten rid of the valence, the definition shifts.
And you'll see that doggone definition for the word shift,
shift, shift, shift and all of a sudden come up to
something that's resolvable at which time you can come off
of the process and whip right around and go right back to
clearing a PT problem or go right back to running Help or
something like that.

The only thing that hangs up a case right now are the
significance of these three commands: Creation for Step 6,
help for the Help Processes and problem for CCH 0. And
we've gotten cases down - this is a terrific thing, you
see - we've gotten cases down to a point where their
resolvability depends upon their ability to define these
three things. If they can define those three things
somewhere and if you can change their definitions of these
things when they're wrong and offbeat, why, you can solve
the case. And this is about the only thing that keeps a
case parked in the existing state is an unchanging
definition of these three things.

And we know what makes cases cases: problems, help,
creation. See, just those three things. There fortunately
isn't anything else. You won't find some other exceptions
to it. This is a subject of a later lecture: the cases that
do not change. Got it?

You could almost say that you could produce a release
simply by clearing these three words. You want to know how
some people have accidentally produced a release with great
suddenness: they've suddenly cleared or changed a definition
on one of these three words.

Okay?

Male voice: Okay.

We're pretty close to the end of this right now. One more
question.

Maida?

Female voice: While you were - of continuing discussion of
problems in the last few days, the lights sort of went on
for me and I'm going to check it out. It seems to me it's
relevant in relation to what we've been talking about here.
And that is the definition of problem and present time
problem, and it really clinched it in the example you gave
about this man that fell off a roof in order to come get
his processing. And that is the problem - present time
problem - is that which the preclear considers that
make - renders him helpless. If you're helpless ...

That's very good. That's very smart, Maida. That's very,
very smart. I'm impressed. That is smart. It's that which
makes the preclear helpless. That's pretty good. We've got
somebody among our midst who's got some - who's got some
thetan.

Thank you.

Okay. That's the end of it.

Now you know a lot more about auditing than you did. It's
always difficult to audit while you're being instructed in
auditing. You got that? There are two or three of you,
right now, who feel a little bit upset about your auditing,
I'm sure, or about your cases. And that could simply be a
feeling that you're invalidated on your auditing which
makes you less capable of handling cases, don't you see,
which could get you into more upset about your private
case. You get how this could be? It's always difficult to
paint a picture with somebody standing there insisting that
you inform him exactly how you mix pigments, what is
form - you got the idea?

If you want to ruin an Olympic games athlete for a short
time, simply go out and ask him how you hold a discus, what
is the stance, how many steps do you take, and bring it all
into awareness.

But I'll tell you something. It is that which was not in
awareness being brought into awareness which upsets you.
Therefore, as it is brought into awareness, you get into
the optimum situation of being able, actually, to perform
even though you're totally aware. And your Olympic games
athlete would become world's champion if he could throw a
discus and still consciously go through every part of
throwing a discus. You see that?

So the ruination is not forever, so don't despair.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


