Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 15/35 (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 15/35 (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-15 (8)   23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES,  ANATOMY OF

SPECIAL EFFECT CASES,  ANATOMY OF

A lecture given on 23 July 1958

[Clearsound, checked against the old reels.  Omissions
marked ">".]

Thank you.

Well, I understand that you got it all fouled up again. I'm
very unhappy about that because it makes me so right; I
expected you would. You particularly.

Awfully dirty trick, you know, not look at anybody and...

Well, we have a lot of ground to cover here. The only
difficulty with the ground we're covering is very simple;
it's a very simple difficulty.

I should cover it all at once, because you need it all now!
If I'd given it to you any earlier, however, it just would
have been so much obfuscation.

This is the eighth lecture of the 20th ACC, July 23rd,
1958. In case you haven't come up to present time, you can
do so. Anybody hearing this tape, of course, will go back
to present time.

Today, unfortunately, we have to cover anatomy. This is not
the basic HCA lecture on anatomy. I assume that you have
some clue regarding anatomy, some faint clue. "Anatomy" to
you is a mass, and so anatomy is a mass.

But a thetan has the ability to have a thought anatomy as
well as a mass anatomy.

That which you are handling when you go into the Rock is a
very specific anatomy. We've had too many people in
Dianetics and Scientology who, in teaching it, laid
tremendous stress on thought.

I've already covered this yesterday - already covered it
yesterday to a marked degree. People think they are
thoughts. They get themselves interiorized into a bunch of
data. You want to be careful you don't get it - yourself
interiorized, however, into a bunch of truth, you'll blow
free. But you get interiorized into a bunch of data, odds
and ends; how popguns go pop and how you mix up carbonated
water with some indigestible syrup or other scientific
technical goals and aims of this particular society. And
they're a pack of lies.

And a fellow who gets interiorized into a bunch of data
that's a pack of lies is just about a dead duck, short of
Scientology. He gets very thoroughly trapped, because he
says, "This is true."

Well now, when somebody came along and looked at you and
said, "This is your name," they told you a lie. In the
first place that isn't your name, and the name you write so
swiftly, easily on your examination papers as a handy
identification tag reaches its furthest use in that
function. It's of no use to you where Internal Revenue is
concerned; only gets you in trouble. No use to you where
the Federal Boys Institute is concerned; they will only tag
you with the things you didn't do and avoid the things you
did.

And you get this thing called identity and there is your
first and most gross example of an individual becoming
interiorized into data. Here is a name; it has nothing to
do with the price of eggs or oranges, and you'll find
people going around dramatizing this name. They are being
their name; they're not being themselves at all.

Now, this is flagrant to this degree: we have to date had
two people who were so thoroughly their names that nothing
would happen to their cases until their names were handled.
This was by old-time processing, but nevertheless quite
true. Fascinating. I unfortunately can't give you the exact
examples because the people are still alive and they're
still Scientologists.

By the way, you can try to make too much out of your name
too. That is the reverse reaction of this sort of thing.

You say, "Well, my name is Jack. Therefore I should make
lots of money." Do you get the idea? Obvious, isn't it? And
so forth. So people are not necessarily interiorized into
their names; it just can happen.

Supposing we had somebody whose name was "Neverrise" and
you told him to "Come up to present time." Now, supposing
this individual was being data, not just was being his
name, but was being data; he was not himself ever, he was
only data. The old Buddhist error that I have been
mentioning to you: "Man is knowledge. You are as much a
thetan as you are a bunch of data." Got the idea?

Well, this fellow, then, would have to have his name
handled one way or the other. You always want to be alert
to that factor. That is a fascinating thing because once
every hundred cases you'll run into it head-on with a
crash. The fellow's name is "Neverrise" and you tell him to
come up to present time.

Now, supposing we had somebody whose name was "Nohelp."
See? "Mr. Nohelp." Well, if you don't think names can add
up to such things, I invite you to inspect the phone book,
look under "surgeons" and find out what people have become
surgeons and what their names are. It's the most fascinating
thing you ever inspected! You must do this sometime. Look
under "undertakers" and find out what their names are.

Now, every once in a while the late Robert Ripley would put
"Bury and Grave, Undertakers, Sioux Falls, South Dakota,"
you know, and he'd think this was very funny. Well, he'd
put it in his cartoon, you know? And I don't know, it's so
common that the commonness of it is funny. Not that "Bury"
and "Graves," two men, would team up and become undertakers.
That's ordinary. And if you don't believe it's ordinary,
go to the yellow pages of the phone book.

Go look up all the advertisements and look right on down
the line. Look under any particular profession and you will
find many. They are not the total example, don't you see?
But they're sufficient to make you believe that it must be
25 or 30 percent totally because of name that they became
chiropodists or something. "Mr. Toe," he's the chiropodist,
you know.

Now, here's the most flagrant example of somebody becoming
data; they become data. And as they become data, they are
incapable of being themselves.

Now, we're not too interested in this phenomenon; it's just
something for you to keep your eye on, and as a
professional auditor, doing any professional auditing at
all, there are several things you have to keep your eye
on - several things. That, however is one of them. These
things are not necessarily totally covered in the standard
operating procedure; this is a sort of thing you just get
to know, you know?

The other thing is eye flutter, obsessive agreement means
hypnotism. That's an hypnotized person and if you don't
recognize an hypnotized person when you see one, you're
also going to get sunk. See, you won't get along very well.

I'm going to cover hypnotism. I can tell you what the
stable datum is of hypnotism and show you why you have to
be alert to an hypnotic subject who is sitting in your
preclear chair. It's because hypnotism is irresponsibility
and you hypnotize a person by making him admit, agree to
and realize that he has no responsibility for certain
things in his environment - not by trying to get him to
be more responsible; you try to get him to be less
responsible. And as you demonstrate to him that he is less
and less responsible, why, he becomes more and more
hypnotic. Here is one of those five buttons I gave you the
other day on total parade: hypnotism and what you can do
with an hypnotic subject.

Give you an idea, you hypnotize some subject, you tell him
that the ruler you hand him is a flaming torch and tell him
to shove the end of the torch into his face and burn his
face. He'll do it. He'll do it as long as that torch isn't
burning. He'll take responsibility for thinking it's
burning; he'll take responsibility for shoving it into his
face.

Similarly, you tell him to go over to the window, which is
just a mock-up window with one foot between it and the
floor, tell him to jump out and fall 185 stories to the
ground, and he'll jump out the window.

But the moment you burn a real torch and hand it to him and
tell him to shove it into his face, he comes out of it. The
moment you tell him to step out a real window and fall to
the ground, he comes out of it. Why?

Because he has, after all, a residual responsibility for
his own safety. And as long as you don't actually mess up
his own responsibility, as long as you can keep him in a
totally irresponsible area, he'll remain hypnotized.

That's actually all you need to know about hypnotism. You
could work the whole subject out and know far more about it
than the Indians, Mesmer, Charcot, or any of the rest of
the boys, who were around "Svengali-ing" the human race.

All right. Now, these are just isolated little
manifestations of one kind or another which do clear up in
auditing, but if you are smart you will see them, and you
will see them clearly.

Fellow sits down. It's always a good thing to look at the
name. You don't have to examine the preclear very
thoroughly, just run kind of automatically and audit him
for an hour. You don't have to really look at him. But it's
a good thing to at least look at his name at the top of his
APA and IQ and any other papers that you have on him and
just see at least what his name is, that at least. Because
if it's "Mr. Nohelp" or it's "Mr. Irresponsibility" or it's
"Mr. Sergeant Major" or something, you are liable to be
running into an unauditable situation by reason of name, or
you're liable to run into a "special effects."

We have special effects men out in Hollywood. Well, names
can be special effect things too! "Mr. Cry" will weep, and
you, you poor fellow, you poor girl will sit there and say,
"We're really getting somewhere on this case because he is
weeping and he's gotten rid of a lot of charge on the
case." Five, six months later it dawns on you the reason
why the fellow never got well, never recovered at all, was
because you were auditing "Mr. Cry." See, that's a special
effects and because they are the datum, a name, they will
turn on special effects. Do you see that?

All right. Now, the other thing, if a person is so
irresponsible that he is hypnotic, of course, he can't take
responsibility for any part of the session except maybe to
agree with you. He could take responsibility for agreeing,
and you could run Responsibility directly on agreeing and
blow him out of an hypnotic trance the like of which nobody
dreamed of being able to do a year or two ago. Fascinating,
see?

But why can't you get anywhere with just routine techniques
on a special effects case? Hypnotized, being data - why can't
you?

Because here is an obvious button standing in your road as
far as recovery of the case is concerned. Given the fact
that you are a good auditor, given the fact that you are
actually able to lay it right down the line on the subject
of the TRs, you'd never have an ARC break with this fellow,
you'd always address, find and handle his PT problem, given
these things - let's just take these skills for granted.

Now, there are some other things that can get so thoroughly
in your road, that you yourself will start to invalidate
yourself and say, "I am not getting any further along the
line and I am just not making headway and I must be
slipping somewhere." Well, the only place you could be
slipping is in the special effects department.

He's hypnotized: the only possible process that you could
run on him would be Responsibility. It wouldn't matter
whether you started the session or ended the session or
anything else. As long as you got in there with some
Responsibility.

And you might have to clear the word; the word might even
be totally unreal to this person. It's very interesting to
watch an hypnotic person wake up; been hypnotized for years
and years and years and years and years and they start
waking up on this one. They've been going around in a total
trance.

You say, "Invent a being. Tell me his ideas of
responsibility." If the person is hypnotized, every single
one of those ideas will be quite bad, upsetting, so forth.

And they invent a being. "What is his idea of responsibility?"

"Oh, well, he wants to get everybody under his thumb and
crush everyone." Now, that's almost too sensible for an answer.

"What is his ideas of responsibility?"

"Well, bolts of cloth." Buy it as an answer; that's as
close as a person who is as bad off could get to a sensible
answer on responsibility. It's just totally beyond them.

The gain of a case is a gradient scale of taking
responsibility for themselves and existence. And unless
that increases, nothing else is going to increase, so you
have the special effects which knocks out the button.

Now, I've given you the name, and I've given you hypnotism
for another reason than this. So could there be a
suppressor on each one of the five buttons - each one of
the five.

Now this special effects fellow is a zero-creation person.
If you were over in Dublin, you would know what I was
talking about. You have never seen anybody anywhere in
America or England with the kind of ideas on the subject of
creation that you find in Dublin.

You can get in darn near a fistfight with people sitting in
a PE course, just by mentioning the word "create." I've
seen somebody clearing definitions on people in a PE course
in Dublin.

> One of the reasons the Dublin office was wheeling as long
> as it was is I found it terribly incomprehensible, rather
> amusing and a question of how far south could it get.
> Anything that worked in that office would work like a
> breeze anyplace else.

Now it's - I'm not being sarcastic about Dublin. This country
was originally oppressed by continual piracy against its
coasts. It's been all torn up one way or the other. One
time it was probably a more fruitful, richer country than
Scotland and England, but that certainly was an awfully
long time ago. And the people who are there now are under
tremendous economic duress and this all by itself is quite
upsetting. Further, they're under a tremendous religious
duress, and this itself is quite upsetting. So they've got
two buttons gone, which then tend to make the rest of them
disappear.

Religious duress, their ideas of creation - you can actually
start a fistfight with trying to clear the definition with
a group in Dublin on the subject of create - just trying to
clear that definition of "create." They all sit back there
and swear that you're being blasphemous. They have an
immediate reaction against you because you mentioned the
word.

And these people are all special effects cases - special
effects. Lord, you have to wind your wandering way through
the awfulest maze and morass and labyrinth of special
effects when you're auditing somebody in that area who is
of the lower case level bracket.

> Of course there are people in Dublin who are quite well
> cultured and educated and all the rest of that.  I'm
> talking about the longshoreman and the rest of the people
> who just come into class and sit down, you know, wow.

When creation goes out the window, everything else tends
to. It's the senior button of all of this; it is the senior
button of the five. But when it starts out the window it
shatters something or some part of one or more of the
remaining four. And the buttons which we're discussing are,
of course, Change, Problem, Help, Create, Responsibility,
in that order.

The special effects case can't create, but that's true of
every case: his creation is unlimited. But it is (capital
T) true of the person who goes back against creation. You
say "create" to him and he goes... You can be sure he's
being his name or he's being his job or he's being a datum.
He certainly is not being alive.

So it is that as each one of these buttons is knocked out
or suppressed, you get a specialized category with no
adequate case gain as a result.

People who are shattered on the subject of Change are hard
to audit. Maybe the rest of them are apparently all right,
but Change is going to influence the other four. But Change
is so pinned down that you could just sit there forever,
practically, and go through motions and have nothing
happen. And, of course, you can understand and you could
possibly write an interesting essay on how Change
influenced the other four buttons; you could figure it out
one way or the other.

But the point is, we start right into a case on Change and
if Change is held down - wow!

Now, I'll tell you how a person gets that way: He can be
keyed in in this lifetime, versus all earlier bad
situations on the subject of Change. He can be keyed in
simply by being moved all over the place. That's one way
and that would be a clue you would have on the subject; the
fellow was going to be a rough Change case. See? He's been
moved-moved-moved-moved-moved-moved-moved-moved. Never
let - nobody ever let him stay still at any time; they
changed his location, changed his location, changed his
location. Never stop, never stop.

This will tell you an awful lot of other things. It'll tell
you that he has upsets about friends. Obviously, every time
he'd leave a place he'd lose all of his friends and he'd
have to make friends in some new place, and then he'd have
to leave that place.

Navy brats and army brats are definitely suspect in this
particular department; they've been moved all over.
Diplomatic children, that sort of thing.

Somebody who was an itinerant worker - let's go down scale -
and had kids and dragged them all over the country in
a trailer and that sort of thing. As soon as you see a
tremendous - lot of change in location in the present-life
history of a case, then you can suspect the person is
resisting change and will take a long time in auditing. Got
that? Now that comes under this special effects department.

Your next: Problems - Problems. The fellow, let us say,
is a mathematician. Well, if you know this preclear is a
mathematician and you go on and run Problems of Comparable
Magnitude or "What part of that problem could you be
responsible for?" you ought to be shot, because you're wrong!

This man has some specialized stupidity on the subject of
problems. He tackles every problem on an innumerable series
of vias. All problems are symbols. There's nothing real
about a problem. What's a problem to him? Well, if he's a
professional mathematician, it's very improbable that he
would be clean as far as this definition of him I'm giving.
I'm not condemning him as a professional mathematician; I'm
just showing he's a special effects case.

He could sit down and get the square root of a third of an
arc, he could trisect the hypotenuse with a few deft lines,
but in most cases, for God's sakes, never ask him to go up
and see Johnny's teacher because Johnny's having trouble.
He usually could just walk right out of the house with the
house on fire; that's quite characteristic of somebody
whose profession is problems. Yeah. That wouldn't be a
problem to him. The problem is how do you trisect an arc?

And you say, "Do you have any problems?"

And he says, "No." And the needle doesn't budge because
he's being totally correct. He isn't working with
mathematics at the time you're auditing him, so of course
he doesn't have a problem. Do you see how this would be?
He's a special effects, special category, special definition.

Now, if he's pretty sane as a mathematician, this doesn't
much get in his road. But if he's totally plowed in and is
being obsessively mathematical, man, brick walls are thin
compared to the barriers this puts on a case. And every
time you try to audit him he runs into one of these brick
walls called "solution" and he's liable to work it all out
in terms of a symbol and come to some equated answer that
doesn't have anything to do with the price of oysters in
Chesapeake Bay. Nada - not the faintest. Problems are not
real; they are a special thing. Got that?

All right, let's look at this next one: Help. And we have a
special effects case, and this special effects case is
simply this: a nurse. Oh, man, you're going to run Help on
a nurse just like that without doing anything else? What
are you, goofy or something!

You just proceeded along beautifully; you got through
Change, you got through Problems, so you said, "This person
is auditing beautifully and therefore we don't have to take
any more notice of the case, and we can just wheel on
through to the end of the line and that's that." And they
go thud on Help. Why? They're professional help.

A Scientologist only has this single held-down button as a
class of people. See, that is their class button: Help. And
it's quite interesting. It's quite interesting. They're
professionals and they have been for a very long time. It
wasn't just this time that they got into Dianetics and
Scientology, see? See, they dramatized the whole thing up
the line, and some people who are having a hard time
learning Dianetics and Scientology are simply swapping horses!

You see, the compulsive impulse to help people is simply a
method by which they can continue to be an apothecary.
After all, all of your pharmacist's certificates and
everything else have been withdrawn from you. They might as
well have been thrown in the coffin with the last body. So
that road is blocked, but it is a good way to help people.

So, you get a Scientologist, now and then, who is on a
substitution. Now, he wouldn't be in Scientology if he were
totally on a substitution, got that? You have to give the
guy a break to that degree, see? He wouldn't be there if he
was totally on a substitution.

A psychologist in this lifetime has been found who was on a
total substitution, and he wasn't learning anything because
he was two substitutes removed from where he was trying to go.

The first substitute was psychology and then he was trying
to understand psychology through Scientology. But what was
he trying to understand through psychology? Well, he was no
longer able to put his hands on mass, and so this lifetime
he couldn't practice as a veterinarian. But he
surreptitiously could put his hands on a brain as a
psychologist, you see?

This guy was all wound up. His button oddly enough was
"animals," "an injured animal." Well, I don't know what
that's got to do with Scientology to amount to anything
because we're not auditing any animals, so he was very,
very unhappy about the whole deal. He had to have all of
his goals reoriented.

Well, this is a professional, occupational button as far as
a Scientologist is concerned, because even if he were new
and fresh in this lifetime at helping people, as he went
plowing down the track handling the dynamite that makes men
die, he'd sooner or later get himself keyed in someplace or
another on some other time he was trying to help people.

> Now, Scientologists all wince from being a minister, so
> that is a safe one to ask the E-meter about.  Alright.
> Once again we have special effects, right?  Alright.

All right, let's go into this thing called Create, and here
we get the master button. I'm very sorry that we don't have
three, four hours of lecture here today because I - really,
you ought to come right on up the line here on all of this
dope that you are working with right this minute.

But here we go. This thing called Create is the senior
button of all other buttons, so that anything creative can
be suspect and this is really what you're going for when
you're trying to find the Rock.

The whole Rock sequence hangs in under this button Create.
And you might say that the Rock - as important as it is,
and as it seems to pervade everything else you're doing -
is subordinate merely to the Create button in this chain of
five because it's obsessive and compulsive creation which
is being inhibited.

All right. We'll go into some more of that in just a
moment. Now, I can say here that you should be suspicious
of, then, when you're looking for the Rock, above
everything else, all creative professions, actions or
objects. And you'll get faster going along asking about
sculpture than you will asking about the time they were a
streetcar conductor, you know.

All those buttons come under - each one has its own
particular route, but the Rock is under this Create,
and that's all it's under.

Now, this next thing is called Responsibility. If you want
to be sure, always round off a process with Responsibility.
If you want to be sure, test the sincerity of
responsibility and definitions of, of a preclear.

After you've run Help - after you've run Help on a red
ruby, if you want to be sure, don't buy Westinghouse, run
Responsibility. "What part of a red ruby could you be
responsible for?" You just want to dust that thing off the
rest of the way. Why?

Most auditing is looked upon by the preclear as a new
system of blame. And it's not. And all a preclear is really
doing when he racks around on the track is finding new
things to blame. But in view of the fact that, particularly
in his own mind, he created them, he's blaming his own
creations, therefore he's denying himself thoroughly and
he's the best person to invalidate self that you could ever
find. You could never find anything more thorough in
invalidation of self than the preclear himself.

So when he starts wracking around the track, he really is
trying to find things to blame. "Is this what caused my
aberration?" is his primary question.

When you start looking for the Rock, you run into this one
directly: "Is this what caused it? Is that what caused it?"
Caused it, be damned! You caused it! The only thing that's
wrong with it is you don't know it. Cause has very little
to do with it, but knowing about it certainly does.

As a matter of fact this is sufficient that you could say,
really, if there was ever to be found a sixth button, it
would be "unknowingness." But in view of the fact that
Not-know processes don't at once lead to Clear, because the
Not-know has a lower harmonic of the inhibitor, and every
time you start auditing the inhibitor, you start uncovering
creations that he's making obsessively and the creation
gets brighter and they knock the preclear's silly head off.
He's silly because he's mocking something up with a
battle-axe in its hand, and as you uncover the inhibitor,
you move the battle-axe figure a little bit on time, and
just as surely as some of these automatons that strike
gongs when it's 12 o'clock, the battle-axe will come right
on through.

Don't expect, of course, that a preclear's head will be
found in a very short time lying on the floor if the
battle-ax passes through his neck, but also, don't be
surprised if it does. If you find the pc's head on the
floor because he cut his own head off with a mocked-up
battle-axe, don't be at all surprised. You'll have the
satisfaction of knowing that he did it.

Now, to get back to Responsibility - get back to
Responsibility - assignment of blame, or assignment of
cause sometimes makes the preclear the effect and where
the assignment of cause is creative cause, the preclear of
course can become the effect of it one way or the other.
The picture, however, is not as grim as you would suppose.
But certainly Irresponsibility is a senior button to
Knowingness and Not-knowingness, because you might say that
Irresponsibility is only not-knowing about it. See, that's
the primary irresponsibility.

How do you become irresponsible for something? Well, you
just forget it. It's even a cliche in English. Guy has a
flat tire, takes his best girl out, got a flat tire. Eh-eh.
So he says, "Forget it. We'll walk up the road and get
something to eat at the diner and have a date anyway," and
just leaves the car sitting there. Get the idea of that?
It's being irresponsible for the object during that period
of time. See?

So you might say that not-knowingness is a method of
irresponsibility. Irresponsibility is how people get into
knowingness and not-knowingness. People don't get into
irresponsibility because they knew and not-knew. Do you
see this? Why?

Running Responsibility turns off and on the phenomena of
know and not-know. Running Know and Not-know often doesn't
influence the factor of responsibility at all. So which is
the highest?

This is quite amazing for a fellow to realize, since we've
been told and told and told all down through the years by
every sect and religion and wise man, soothsayer - oh, for
billions, trillions of years! I mean this thing has been in
this universe: "Knowingness is all." See? Knowingness isn't
all at all. It's Responsibility; Responsibility is above
Knowingness and it is a button from which a preclear will
flinch as though you have just presented him with a red-hot
eye-puncher-outer. He'll really flinch from that one.

Anything which turns on and off something else could be
said to be senior to it. The light switch is not
necessarily more important than the light, but it certainly
is the thing which monitors and controls the lights. That
is not a good analogy because a light switch is not
primary. It's of course, the electricity coming over the
lines or is it the dynamo in the local light plant, or is
it the coal, or is it the plants that decided to live in
some long-forgotten past that made the coal? And we get
into merely the total association which this universe
presents you with at every hand.

Well, a case gets jammed up into this total association
and he feels he can't be responsible for all of it. He
sometimes makes an heroic effort and decides to be
responsible for all of it because if he doesn't he'll have
some vast consequence. That's also a cute one that you'll
run into in auditing.

The fellow is saying, "Well, I could be responsible for
this. I'd better be!" he's really saying to himself. "I'd
certainly better be responsible for this and better be
responsible for that because if I don't I'll get a
psychosomatic illness and I won't be Clear." You know,
consequence-consequence-consequence. That's a low, enforced
responsibility.

And nevertheless, as that light switch is senior to the
lights in terms of causation, so is Responsibility senior
to Knowingness and Not-knowingness, and this I say into the
teeth of all of the soothsayers that ever soothed.

Yes, it releases if you know about it. Neh-heh! But how do
you know about it? You be responsible for some part of it
and it's liable to leap, full armed, into your teeth. And
for a little while, you wish you damn well didn't know
about it because it turns on a lot of somatics and it's a
lot of grief and it's a lot of upset; and if you go over
the hill and a little bit higher up the line on the thing,
a little bit more responsibility turns on a little bit more
knowingness.

Searching for data is not as reliable a method of obtaining
facts as taking responsibility for the object you wish to
know about. If you don't believe it, take a little kid
sometime and show him a machine and if he can at all grasp
this concept of responsibility, get him to take
responsibility for various parts of the machine and then
listen to him tell you what the machine is all about.

Now, education is that system of giving people data without
making them responsible for any of it. And you get a data
trap and we are right straight back to Change again, aren't
we? We are right back to the beginning of the parade.

Now, an individual who will not take responsibility cannot
change, and a person who cannot change cannot handle any
problems, and a person who can't handle problems certainly
can't help, and a person who can't help anything certainly
won't create. And a person who can't or won't create is
doing so because he can't or won't take responsibility for
the actions and parades of his creations. So this little
thing goes round and round and round in an endless cycle.

One button runs into the next button, runs into the next
button, runs into the next button, runs into the next button.

And now we're going to get back to anatomy which was what I
told you about. I've been talking to you about the thought
anatomy of a case.

The anatomy of a thetan is: thought products. See? He is
self-thought products. Got that?

His products can be additional thoughts. But when we say
"products" we mean in essence that which everybody else
considers a "product" which contains space, energy, mass
and exists in time. And every product which you see
anywhere was developed by a thetan.

Now, I have talked about a special effects case so that you
would understand what you're up against when you try to
disentangle a case and find yourself a special effects case
as an auditor. You as the auditor are being a special
effects case when you will not confront the mass, space,
energy, time products of a thetan.

So that the more you get into the ideas, the more you get
into the complexities of thought, the more sold you get on
the idea that you can avoid matter, energy, space and time.
And you start figure-figuring as a special effects
character, you're using thinkingness when you ought to use
a shovel! Because mass is not a product of thought!
Someday, somebody will hear that and boy, will he become a
whiz-bang as an auditor!

People have believed on this track for Lord knows how long
that, "If you thought a thought you got a mass." Now, I
took this up yesterday. No! No! Think a mass! See? Think a
mass, don't think a thought to think a mass!

"Now, I am going to put up a wall. Now, wall, appear." And
it appears. And you say, "See, it appeared because I put up
a thought." Damn, it didn't! You went through all this
mumbo jumbo and then you thought a wall!

Christian Science tells you that there is no mass nowhere,
noplace, nohow.

> And I say it ungrammatically to express my contempt.
> All is infinite mind and mind is thought, and if you
> think right thoughts, everything goes to hell.  Now, I
> never really sneer at other people's beliefs, I only
> sneer at their facility to believe lies.

Now, here we've got a good one - here we've got a good one.
It says, "Avoid all mass." It said, "The masses will all
right themselves properly if we just think the right
thoughts." That's at least the impression people get out
of it.

Now, please, as a Scientologist, don't follow that same
route - please - because the route doesn't exist in
Scientology. Read the Axioms. In Scientology, mass is; it
is. It isn't whether it's real or not real or exists
because of you or exists because you thought it up or any
other nonsense; it simply is. And someday if you can just
get this through somebody's skull - that it simply is. See?
It isn't there because. Do you get the idea? It isn't there
because you are hypnotized into believing that it is solid
or...

Look at all these silly vias, see. There are just vias,
vias, vias; they're going all over the place. You know?
Anything to escape the idea of responsibility for being
able to think mass! Do you recognize this as a primary
irresponsibility?

You see? It is. That's all you'd have to say about it, you
see? It's too horribly simple. It isn't a delusion, you
see; it is itself. It isn't a belief you have; it is
itself. It isn't even an agreement; it simply is. Now, if
you can untangle this, never thereafter will mass on a
case, particularly the Rock, confuse you. You'll never be
confused about the Rock.

The Rock isn't a belief, see, or an agreement or anything
else - it simply is! And it - isness creates resistance
electronically which reads on a meter.

Now, you could take something and say, "It is" and then
come along and say "Squash! It is not," and have yourself
the most beautiful hash you ever tried to get indigestion from.

People are coming along religiously and saying, "Everything
is simply a belief" or so on. Wow! Boy, did they take
havingness away from anybody. I think that's one of the
most expert games of can't-have I ever saw played.

Fellow comes down the street and he gathers a bunch of
people together and "You see all this stuff? Huh. It isn't."

And they say "No?" And they say, "Well, we're willing to be
irresponsible for the stuff." My, my, watch it fade out!

All you do is have to slap an inhibitor on it and it's
there and it's suppressed from being there. We call this
not-isness in the Axioms - makes you kind of - funny when
you think about it.

Time isn't existing, either, by a mechanism. Time does not
exist by a mechanism. Time just is. This stuff rolls along.
To have time you have to be able to accept change. Well,
that's fine, but time is. Do you get this trap? See? Time is.

Now, in order to accept what is, in other words, in order
to not not-is it, you have to have a tolerance for it, and
that's all you'll ever improve in a preclear as far as
mass, energy, space and time is concerned. You improve his
tolerance of it.

How do you improve his tolerance of it? You make him take
responsibility for it. How do you do that? By demonstrating
to him that it is within his creative range, that he can
tolerate change and other special effects immediately
surrounding this immediate fact of is.

Now all we've done is discover the vias he gets out of the
idea of is. Those ways he gets out of admitting things are,
are these five buttons. Do you get the idea? But one of
them is a direct is. But he can get so confused and via'd
by it, that it is a primary method of escape from
responsibility.

He said, "God created it all and I had nothing to do with
it whatsoever. God created all of it. I had nothing to do
with it. Not even one tiny little atom of any part of this
universe has anything to do with me. I'm author of none of
it. Bury me deeply out over the green prairie."

Do you conceive that a mental image picture is any part of
a human body or can join itself in any way to a human body
or modify it in any way, or add any mass to it in any way?
Do you think this is possible?

Well, look - look, there is an isness, isn't it? And the
body's in the universe, isn't it? Now, we don't even have
to conceive the idea of it being buried and going away to
"dust is to dust." See? It is in the universe right now; it
doesn't join the universe by dying or any other cockeyed
via. You see? It just is. Well, if it's having any mass
added to it at all by the concepts of a thetan then he has
added something to the creative fact of isness of the
physical universe. Do you see that clearly?

So he isn't sitting over here all independent of it and
some Throgmagog someplace or another... The earliest
concepts of this are not Christian; they are not Indian
either, but on earth here you'll find them in the earliest
Vedic writings, the earliest written record of these things
of which I know anything, that you can verify at the local
library.

It didn't come from some exterior source totally. Now,
nobody asked anybody to suddenly accept the idea that he
himself personally is making the whole universe and is the
only one doing it. That's a rather steep gradient scale.
But one does look askance on the exact reverse of that:
that he has nothing to do with creating any part of it.

And that is as extreme and as unworkable and as incorrect
as saying that you personally are the only one who makes it
all and you are making it all, right this minute and nobody
else has anything to do with it. Now, you see that's kind
of a nutty remark, isn't it? You don't even vaguely have
any idea of what the Chinese have to be continued to be
mocked up as lately. You see, you're falling short there
just a little bit.

But get the idea that you'd have to be responsible for not
only the continuous actions of but the continuous mock-up
of all of China, their customs, costumes and if you look at
a Chinese street with 10,000 people on a short block, you
get an idea of the number of bodies and the amount of
confusion. And each one of these is individually being
created by you simultaneously in all directions at the same
instant. Don't you think it's kind of an extreme accusation
to make? Huh?

Well, it's just as extreme to say there's a god someplace
that does it all and you do none of it. See? They can be
equally incorrect. I think the least God would do - to
enlist your aid a little bit here and there.

Now, as we go along the lines, as we go along the lines
here, we discover then that it's easy to get a case to
concentrate on these five buttons in their state of vias
and rather hard to get the case to concentrate on such
things as the isness of. Pretty hard, but you can sneak up
on it. You can swing in on it. You can bring him to a
realization of it - by processing.

And the only thing you're trying to get him to realize:
that he's creating something he doesn't even know he's
creating, in his mind, called the Rock. And your goal is
isness, not thinkingness.

Responsibility for the isness of the Rock: No Rock! See,
bang! Bang! That's all the process there is. Reductio to
zero. See, that's all the process there is.

Recognize the existence of the Rock, take responsibility
for the existence of the Rock: No Rock - boom! Boom! Fast
Clear; that'd be the end of that.

Now, it's how steep a gradient can you attempt per preclear
that establishes the length of time in clearing. The goal
is to recognize the isness of the Rock.

Now, the goal of OT is to recognize, accept and continue to
create the eight dynamics, his share of. Ha-ha! That's a
little bit different, isn't it? So an OT's goal also
contains a recognition of the isness of.

And one might say that as you plow out the significance,
you plow in the sanity. And as people are so reasonable,
you find it almost impossible to knock on the door of some
of their buttons; they are so reasonable that they could
explain them all away with what gorgeousness.

The service fac is simply a method of explaining them all
away and that's in plain sight. So the first thing you run
into is the service fac.

And under that service fac, you have locks, locks. And
locks are simply moments of restimulation of the basic
engram of which the preclear is to some degree aware.
They're light; they don't contain pain and unconsciousness,
but they take, from the basic engram on any chain, their
force from the pain and unconsciousness in that basic
chain. Got that? So, that's the next thing you run into,
is lock.

And then you'll run into some secondaries. What's a
"secondary"? A secondary is the emotional response derived
from a mental image picture of a moment of pain and
unconsciousness. That's a secondary. A secondary contains
misemotion - grief, anger, extreme apathy, degradation, which
is just an exaggerated apathy. It could also contain below
apathy, and at the moment you look at the preclear and he's
not crying if he has a secondary to the Rock which is
tears, I can tell you very bluntly that he is below tears
as he sits there in the chair in present time feeling all
right.

Now, we're auditing so fast these days that we don't
necessarily run through tears. The secondary is liable to
blow without being dramatized. It also might get dramatized.

But below this secondary, this misemotional picture or
series of pictures, you get physical experiences,
mismanaged isnesses, which contain pain and unconsciousness
which have huge irresponsibilities connected with them, and
he doesn't even know about it at the time.

That's the anatomy of the Rock; and the engrams, the
secondaries, the locks and the service fac contain
personnel associated with the computation. Therefore you
run into incidents - time, the isness of time. You run into
energy, the disintegration of masses, at one time fairly
perfect and shaped up. Also the inhibitors. In other words,
you run into chaotic energy flows of one kind or another.
Therefore you run into actual space; there is space trapped
in this series of incidents, these actual things. There is
space there.

There is also, of course, mass. And all of these things are
present in this chain. And all the five buttons are to some
degree functional on this chain.

And what you're looking for is a terminal, not an idea.
What you're looking for is a mental image picture, not one
created by a thought. You see, you're looking for it is. He
may have a squash on it that says it is not. You start
taking this squasher off of it and boy, is it!

You're looking for terminals; you're looking for actual
existences. There is something there, it is!

And so don't you Q-and-A with your own bank and go on
looking for thinkingnesses and data and the other things
I've been talking about, because those are simply via
approaches to the isness of what is.

Your pc wants the form he's got or something related to it,
and the thing he is creating obsessively and doesn't know
anything about is modifying the form he is creating and
that includes the form of his own life and possessions.

And you have two isnesses in counterpoise which are totally
in conflict and they won't agree. So noncomputational
things come flying off the case; problems come off of the
case like mad. All kinds of things come off of the case
because you have two counterposed isnesses that never get
along together.

So look for the isness and blow it out.

And in diagnosis, it's particularly true that you can't
lose if you realize that what you're looking for exists.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


