Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 21/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 25 Nov 1999 01:58:19 -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 21/35 (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-21 (11)  28 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET - GOALS OF AUDITING

ACC COMMAND SHEET - GOALS OF AUDITING

A lecture given on 28 July 1958

[Based on the clearsound version only.]

How are you today? How are you today, huh?

Audience: Fine, good.

If I seem to talk rather staccato, it's because I've been
listening to some Jose Greco's ballets and...

Well, here we are at the beginning of your auditing half of
the course, you might say. You all know how now, you hear me?

And from here on we're just going to go for blood and get
everybody cleared up. Okay, that's what we're taking up today.

This is the eleventh lecture of the 20th ACC, July 28,
1958. And this lecture begins with the Command Sheet for
the ACC which is revised, brought up to date, modernized
and fixed!

Now, up to this time I've been letting you think for
yourselves, letting you figure it out and wander your way
through it.

By this time you have found out that there's something to
what I've been telling you and you have some small reality
on it. You have been capable, I am sure, of bringing
yourself up to cause-point.

Now, on any material in Scientology, whether the TRs or
anything else, if you do not bring yourself to cause-point
while you use it, you are simply being the effect of
Scientology and L. Ron and all the other good auditors and
swell guys that have helped make this thing come true. You
understand?

And we don't want you as an effect. This is not what we require.

But in view of the fact - in view of the fact that a great
deal of truth has dropped out, we can tell you that you can
come to cause-point because no matter when back on the
track, you had your share in the origin of the postulates
and considerations that spun everybody in. Okay? So you
might as well become cause at the level that spins
everybody out. And it's not actually even very much to ask
anybody. All it requires is that you're sane, stable, have
a self-control that man has never before exhibited. That's
all it requires.

In diagnosis, which we call "scouting," which is - because
it isn't diagnosis - there's never been a disease called
the Rock. There have been kidney stones. But we're under no
circumstances or sense diagnosing any illness, certainly no
illness of the body. Because if you start running down for
illnesses of the body while you're trying to find the Rock,
you're going to find yourself on a rock, you know that.

And we look this over and we find out that you are capable
of coming up to cause along this line and using it and I do
not want you as an auditor becoming a total effect of all
the cognitions and so forth. Not that there's anything
wrong with becoming an effect, but you might still feel to
some degree, here and there, that you are going through
some little rote activity that's like a magic incantation
that drops a certain number of herbs in the stew pot and a
certain number of green and blue devils will jump out. Now
I don't want you doing that. And I want you to audit with
understanding.

But the gross and total understanding of Scientology today
does contain some very worthwhile and well worked out material.

Now, I have been using Clear Procedure. I've had Clear
Procedure used on me and I've watched you using Clear
Procedure or some reasonable or unreasonable facsimile
thereof, and I know that you need a standardization at this
point.

You have six auditing periods left. That is to say six, you
might say, intensives left, three to give and three to
receive. And then at this point we're just standardizing
this thing so there'll be a minimum amount of arguments.

All right. The definition of an auditing session would be:
the general activity dedicated to de-aberrating people and
making Clears. Your goal in an auditing session is to make
a Clear.

[Please note: At this point in the lecture a gap exists in
the original recording. We now rejoin the class where the
lecture resumes.]

The definition of "auditing" is: an activity of a highly
specialized nature taking place between two people with the
goal of producing a Clear or a total dynamic Clear or an OT.

The immediate goal and intention is toward OT, always. It
is a third dynamic activity and its first product is the
first dynamic. Always something for you to know that you're
trying to get people up to the first dynamic. And if you
think your pc is being mean because he's totally first
dynamic or something of the sort, you are being very wrong.
He's being mean because he's an inverted third and he comes
up through an inverted third and he's definitely on a
buried-in and inverted first, you see.

The Clear that you will produce will be a first dynamic
Clear. Once you make a first dynamic Clear, he's got to go
for broke or else. Clear is an absolute state. It is
tremendously better than any state anybody has ever
envisioned before, but in view of what can be done it is
a limited state. Now, let's remember that.

Now, when a person is a first dynamic Clear, he's just a
Clear. He has been trained as a con man. You now have a
very, very fine con man. You understand that? He would go
up to the third dynamic on subsequent auditing and when
third dynamic was clear, he would find that there was
somebody else in the world he didn't have to be a con man
to, and then you would change his ideas concerning being a
con man.

As far as criminality and other activities concerned, which
would immediately involve or debase the first dynamic, that
he can see, he'll alter these things. You don't have a
Clear criminal, you understand. You have a Clear
educational pattern.

An individual who is Clear on the first dynamic will, of
course, not compromise the first dynamic knowingly, but you
have to find out something about the third dynamic to find
out whether or not the third dynamic compromises the first
dynamic, don't you see? So as he lives and as he reaches
out into the society, he perforce will start, just in
livingness, the clearing of the second and third dynamic.

Now, you will find many people becoming Clear and
immediately thereafter getting involved in the second
dynamic. I think that's very interesting because the period
they'll go through for a short time, and then they'll see
about this second dynamic, don't you see? Clear is a first
dynamic activity.

Now, if you wanted to clear to a total dynamic Clear, you
would follow more or less the same activities you follow
now. But let me point out something to you. When you
examine this goal, when you get to know something about
this, you will say, "Well, gee, that's easy. Why did I ever
have to be told this?" It works this way. An individual who
has come up to an awareness of self has conquered his own
reactive mind.

But let me point out to you that there are still people out
there. You still have a physical universe which is a form
made out of chaos in its present state, and you have
reactive banks right on up all dynamics. Now, how do you
expect this person to be at cause-point at least over all
of these reactive banks on the second, third, fourth,
fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth dynamic? Now, that is
asking a tremendous amount of an individual.

Now, he's already junked and jettisoned his own reactive
bank. This really only permits this: he is no longer ill -
he isn't getting reactively ill on this, that and the other
thing - but he himself is able to be at cause over, you might
say, himself. With that awareness of self he can now change
his mind, view and understand the remainder of the universe.

You can do this also in an auditing session and catalyze
the process enormously.

Now, if you think for one minute that I'm underselling the
state of Clear, there aren't enough light-years on all
total spaceship routes in this universe to give you an
analogy of the difference between a Clear and an aberree.
You see? An aberrated person with a reactive bank and so
forth - from there to Clear is such a vast step that it has
been the hardest step to take, and that has been a really
vast step. It's big.

But looking directly at Clear and knowing the rest of the
picture, you shouldn't then come around and overstress
Clear. So it isn't a matter of overestimation or
underestimation; it's just a matter of stress or
understress or overstress.

Now, if an individual cannot be responsible for himself
and his activities and he says he is Clear, he certainly
couldn't be. Once you strip out the reactive bank, an
individual is capable of taking responsibility over his own
first dynamic concerns, and by this reason not any longer
being interiorized into the reactive bank, can view the
environment around him. And viewing it, has started upon an
understanding of it.

Up to this time he was looking at everything in the
environment via some sort of a misinterpreted picture in
the reactive bank. So therefore, the reactive bank up to
this time was telling him, "Now, I am supposed to ..."
"Now, it is supposed to..." and so on and you just had an
automaton. And it's like bringing a doll to life to make a
Clear. There's a big difference here.

Now, you have to understand in an auditing session that you
are overcoming vias. Let us take experiment one. This is a
research experiment.

We have an individual listen until he hears a sound
outside, then make a picture of whatever made that sound
and pull it in and take a look at it. And if he can do that
you will find something astonishing. He has already altered
the character of the picture. He's already via'd it, you
see, by making a picture of it and looking at the picture.
Thetans do that all the time. Instead of looking at
something directly, they make a picture of it and then look
at the picture.

But your pc hasn't really even been doing this. He makes
the picture and then he alters the living daylights out of
the picture so it's good and safe, you know. "Any change is
safe." That's his motto.

When you see some girl doing some fantastic thing with her
marriage or something like that or shifting around, or some
guy all of a sudden grabbing off some waitress or something
of the sort, you know, and having a big string of dates,
whereas, as a matter of fact he's got some good
girlfriends, you see. You know, he's just running this
motto - it's a motto analogous to "anything is better than
nothing" - and that is "change is safe." See, he thinks
change is safe, so "any change is safe" is his motto.

And he may be in a very secure position, but to be safer he
will make a change. And thetans do this obsessively all the
time. So when he hears a bird outside, he makes a picture
of this bird so that he can look at the picture and find
out a lot about this bird. Only he knew doggone well that
it was a sparrow, so he makes a picture obsessively of a
cardinal, not because it's prettier, because it's different.

If it was a white swan, he'd bring it in and he'd have a
picture of a robin. You see that?

Now, what's he done? He's put a via between himself and the
MEST universe and he's put in an interpretation between
himself and the real universe, the remainder of the
dynamics. And then the reactive bank becomes the composite
changes which he considers necessary to make in order to
view anything.

The first of these changes are in terms of mass so you get
a reactive bank, mass, mass changes. There are also
inversions on this line. So mass changes then add up into
thought changes.

Now, he makes a picture of the cardinal and gets a sparrow
and then instead of looking at the picture of a sparrow, he
says, "Ah, Audubon!" Now, here's a new thought and a
consideration. "Isn't it pretty?" is also a consideration
between himself and the picture of the sparrow. You see,
the picture of the sparrow simply is! It isn't pretty or
ugly or this, that or anything else. It simply is, but he
vias it.

Now, a few dozen more vias and you have him writing a
dictionary so that he incidentally can add the word
"ornithology." See, he writes a whole dictionary just to
get that word "ornithology" in, which has vaguely something
to do with this picture of a sparrow which he took of a
cardinal and which was supposed to be an exact duplicate copy.

Now, get this, boy. First, there's a mass interposition
that's the reactive bank and then sitting on top of this
reactive picture, of one kind or another, you have
considerations ad infinitum. "Isn't it pretty?" "Isn't it
nice?" "Casper makes better ones."

Now, these vias get up to a point where they are totally
identified and you get your A=A=A=A. At first they are only
associated but then they become identified, obsessively
identified. He has tried to get so far away from them that
he walks toward them and as he tries to go away from them
with various considerations, he runs back into them again.
And in trying to differentiate and never associate, he
eventually runs into, first, obsessive association and then
he runs into identification. Hence the silly answers you
get when you're running a Help. Do you follow this closely?

Now, at any time you ask this individual to look at the
wall or ask him repetitively by duplication to look at this
wall and that wall and so forth, just old 8-C, you will get
a - high probability that you will get - a series of
considerations running off.

Now, what are those considerations? When you ask him to
look at the wall, he looked at a consideration. After
you've done this for a while, he's liable to come up and
say, "You know, I've always just looked at pictures of
walls with my physical eyes and I have never before looked
at a wall. And there is a wall and, wow! It doesn't bite. I
can look at a wall." Don't you see?

So the result - and this is very germane to auditing - the
result of this consideration - picture in the pc causes him,
whenever you ask him to look at anything, to look at an
associative and identified chain of considerations which
starts him "thinking" (quote) (unquote), but any thought he
thinks brings him closer to confronting.

You confront a psycho with something, he just goes into a
disassociation and identification and anything he thinks
has nothing to do with the subject at all.

But you take almost anybody and confront them with somebody
and they are liable to get a whole bunch of varied
considerations.

Try and tell a funny story to somebody sometime without
reminding them of one which has nothing to do with the
story you just told.

Now, when you confront a person with a thought, you very
often generate other thoughts. I'm not saying anything bad,
with thoughts really being in between the individual and a
picture. What is bad about it is if they have to be and if
this changingness is there simply to make him more safe.
Safe from what? - if you please.

Well, he's got ideas on what's dangerous. And no one of you
would ever be able to draw up a bill of goods on what the
rest of you individually would believe is dangerous. It
would simply include the entirety of the universe when you
finally got through with the entirety of the human race.

We say, "Mother" to somebody and he says, "Yes." And we say
"Mother" to somebody and he says, 'Mnnnnh!" And we say,
"Mother" to somebody else and he says, "Huh?" Well, there's
three different reactions; then do we conclude mothers are
safe or dangerous? No, as auditors, we have to conclude
that mothers are. And you're always safe to make that
conclusion.

It works like this: the individual, confronted at any time
with problems particularly, terminals, the MEST universe
particularly, goes through: take a picture of it, add
considerations to it, mask it, alter it, via it, park it
all in the reactive bank and go nuts.

Therefore, when you confront your preclear with anything,
you get vias you don't even see, particularly if he's below
apathy, and what you're watching is a case "de-viafying."

Now, your psychoanalyst was so incapable of doing anything
like this that he added vias. He didn't think there were
enough vias, he was so scared. So he said, "It's all sex."
You know, that's cost me an awful lot of blind dates, Freud
has. It's all I hold against him.

People say, "Well, I don't know. If I start thinking
about - about the second dynamic or dates or anything like
that, I'll probably go crazy, you know?" Some guy whistles
at a girl and she faints. She didn't use to back in Greek
times. No sir. I know.

He was talking about the second dynamic. He was already too
many steps removed. He had to talk about the guy or
nothing, so he was already running a via. And then he'd
find someplace where a little boy finds a little girl's
toys lying on the pavement or something like this and this
became very significant and is the primary and fundamental
circumstance in the case. So then the analyst sits there
for the next - oh, I don't know how long they - what they
call an intensive is two eternities, I think is their finite
count for processing - and he sits there for the next two
eternities telling the patient what it is all about.

Give you an idea of how these dopes don't savvy. It's quite
interesting case of - fellow was given a CO2 therapy; I told
the auditor to get that off the case. The auditor could
have been much more thorough about it but we took it off
with lock scanning and didn't get it all off.

But every time the individual - every time he went to sleep
under the C02 or whatever you do in CO2, throw up or spit
at analysts or something - it has some magical connotation.
If you put CO2 in liquor, it has a magical connotation and
if you put it in patients it has a magical connotation.
Nobody has ever isolated this, but this doesn't stop them
from using it. So the fellow would go to sleep and he'd see
a picture on wall A and when he would wake up they would
ask him where the picture was and he would find it on wall B.

Isn't this cute? Do you know what the stupid jerks thought
they were doing? They thought they were establishing
whether or not he was fully awake because if he could tell
the picture had been changed in position, he was fully
awake. But do you know what they do to their patients with
that? The patient thinks he's crazy. But this is a standard
activity in what they laughingly call the field of healing
in circa twentieth century, place: Earth.

We have a pc right this moment who thinks he's nuts because
the picture changed position every time they gave him C02.
He never has found out to this moment that they changed the
picture. And even when this was more or less pointed out to
him by the auditor, he still couldn't figure it out and
didn't think they would do anything like that.

Audience: Oh no!

Now, there's putting another via on the line. Let's put
another via on the line; lets knock a fellow out, change
the room furniture and wake him up again, and say, "Well,
how is it now?" You know?

Therefore, you don't evaluate for the preclear because
you're just putting in more vias, and therefore you are not
particularly surprised - you are not particularly surprised
at all - when your preclear comes up with some non sequitur
comment pursuant to your efforts to make him look at something.

Sure he looked at it and he got a via. All you're really
doing is pulling vias off a case, and that is auditing. And
you're taking the thought vias and the mass vias, and these
thought and mass vias simply add up to the reactive mind.

The "reactive mind" is made up of masses called engrams,
secondaries and locks which contain matter, energy, space
and time and identifications of pictures, and all manner of
considerations. And these are, and the vias are, and the
thoughts are. And when some old-time religious activity
comes up with the astonishing datum that man is a datum, he
is just data and nothing else, what is he doing? He's
looking at a man several times removed from even being able
to look at a picture. The fellow isn't himself anymore,
he's a datum. Do you see that?

So we find preclears around who are their names and nothing
else. They're not a thetan. They're a name. And you're
auditing a name. Unless you get vias off the case, he won't
get well.

But this has a flipperoo. This has a double bite. When we
are training people, it doesn't just apply to preclears.
When you ask an auditor under training particularly, to
look at something in the preclear's case, you very possibly
will restimulate a picture-thought-change pattern. Do you
see that?

The auditor looks at it and boy, he's really got to be in
present time and right on his toes. And when he gets a
little tired or something, he gets picture-picture-picture,
thought-thought-thought-thought-thought-thought-thought.
Get the idea? And he's supposed to utter the right command,
but he doesn't. Hence you occasionally drop ashtrays.

It's rough to audit people before you're Clear. This is
certain. This is a fact. It's rough to have just been
audited half through the Rock and then flip over to being
an auditor. That's rough.

It's rough to be on the job and in class and roaring along
at a great rate and all of a sudden you're half keyed-out
on something, something happens to totally key it in.
Because for the love of Mike you're living with the raw
materials of insanity every day of your lives in one of
these classes.

But that is expected environmental randomity in Scientology
and never consider it anything else and don't ever expect
anybody in Scientology to blink or be surprised because you
just felt that you had a broken leg while you were auditing
somebody. They are much more likely to say, "Well, what
happened to the preclear?" It isn't that nobody will give
you sympathy. It isn't that people are hardhearted. But
when people begin to know the anatomy of these
difficulties, they can be effective. And when people can
be effective, they stop being sympathetic.

Now, I live in the hothouse atmosphere of aberrations
flying around in all directions from one year's end to the
next, and so do many of you. We, however, are in a rather
concentrated spot because all the cases that couldn't be
cracked in the field eventually wind up in our paws. And
there's hardly a day goes by but what we aren't having some
kind of a conference on "whose vias have via'd us out the
window now?"

And it's always a matter of where do we find an entrance
point to this case? And the entrance point to any case is
the largest possible via that the preclear can tolerate at
this time. And we can get a reality on that point and we
can go for broke up the gradient scale. But until we've got
our foot in on the first level of reality of the case,
we're not on any gradient scale and we're not winning.

We seldom consider what process should we run until we've
considered what is real to this case. And we finally find
out what's real to the case, we got it made. And there's no
reason why you can't do the same. Our secret is out of the bag.

Now, we're not above dreaming up a process to fit the case,
but we already have at our fingertips a tremendous number
of processes which work. We've got years and years of
processes.

Somebody dreaming up processes now is certainly carrying
coals to Newcastle. There's nothing wrong with it, and you
should never fail to send them in, but they go into a file
up here where it's already been submitted four or five
times, usually.

How many people have been submitting processes over how
many years? We keep them all on file and we check them out
as we can on research. That is not our most fruitful area
of materials. And yet every once in a while, in every blue
moon, somebody comes up with something and we say, "Wow!"

Give you an idea: we have under test a process right now -
it was turned in - if you can't find the PT problem, run some
Connectedness. And that was a terrific thing. It evidently
whips a present time problem into view. Well, wow, nobody
ever thought of doing that before - right on the groove and
saying it just like that and so on. And it had some use. Do
you get the idea?

Never stop turning these things in because I am not the
last man in the world that could think, I am merely the
last man in the world who could get mad. I haven't gone
along with the fact that we should all spin everybody in
everyplace at all times, crush all civilizations that arise
and worship at the throne of politics and idiocy. And
perhaps that is my sole contribution.

But when we get down to a Command Sheet, which is where
we've been going all this time, we are dealing with what?
We are dealing with a preclear who will go out like a
scattered jack rabbit on vias the moment that you say, "Hey
son, look." Or "Do you see this, Miss?" They go right out
of there on chains of vias, see? Rrrrrrr! Gone. Something
just barely showed up and they left the country. You get this?

Well, you have to hack at it and hack at it and hack at it
and make them confront and make them confront and make them
confront. And they peel a few more vias off and a few more
vias off and a few more vias off and a few more vias off
and they finally look up and say, "Oh, a canteen,
ha-ha-ha-ha." And you say, "You silly jerk! I've just been
holding this canteen in front of your face for the last
five hours of processing." But they've got to realize it
and that is the game of auditing: is making somebody walk
through his own vias and come to the realization that there
is an isness. And when you can do that, you've got it made.

Now, that is why, more than anything else, we fix a Command
Sheet, because both auditor and pc can leave the country on
the subject - on the path of vias on occasion. So a Command
Sheet is a stable datum which keeps the auditor in session
and the pc going on up.

A command is a fixed thing because it has been tried, has
found to work, and any variations and vagaries are worked
out of it over a period of time, and is reworded and
reworded and reworded until it finally fits all cases; and
then as soon as it fits all cases, it'll fit all vias. And
when it fits the majority of the vias, you've got it made.

Now, there are a few of these commands like Connectedness,
which I am not too satisfied with, but which are,
incidentally, the best commands which have emerged to date
from my research. They are the best commands, but they are
not perfect commands.

Now, we have found many things going wrong in sessions, but
the most that goes wrong is a failure to confront auditing
on the part of the auditor, once more; hence a Command
Sheet. I am being very hard on you today and not very
sympathetic and not very much sweetness and light, but I
will let you in on a little secret.

We consider when a case is not advancing rapidly or if an
auditor hasn't gotten his preclear in-session rapidly that
the auditor is failing to confront auditing. That's what we
believe. If there isn't a rapid approach to the case and if
there aren't rapid gains, then we consider the auditor is
not confronting auditing. Whatever auditing might be,
whatever its parts are, this we know for sure. A slow
freight is a no-confront as far as we're concerned.

We find an auditor spending three-quarters, nine-tenths of
his session on the PT problem. Oh, come on now. Come on
now. A PT problem is never going to cure anybody of
anything. All you want to do is sweep it out of the way so
you can get back and straighten out the case.

You realize that every PT problem a person has is sitting
as simply a late lock on the chain and in order to cure up
the PT problem totally it'd be necessary for you to clean
the chain. Well, you clean the chain with auditing, not
with removing PT problems.

When we find somebody sitting down and discussing ad
nauseam for two hours the subject of goals, we say the same
thing: "There's somebody around here that isn't confronting
auditing." Because goals is CCH 0. And the only reason you
want goals in there is not to do the pc a bit of good, but
to help bring him up to PT. If you bring him up to the
future, he's liable to become a little closer to PT, you
see? So you've sort of in effect said, "Come up to present
time."

The actual mechanism that you want those goals for is so at
the end of the session you can say, "Has any time passed?"
But the way you say it is, "Did you attain any part of the
goals which were set up at the beginning of the session?"
He usually looks at you blankly and he says, "Goals at the
beginning of session? Goals at the beginning of session?
Uh-uh-uh-oh, oh, oh, yes, yes, yes. Well, I'd - well, the
headache's gone. Hm." So you moved him on the auditing time
track.

How long does it take to do this? Just about as long as it
takes you to spit out a handful of words, that's about all.
You ask the pc something like this, you're not going to let
him comm lag a half an hour. If he comm lags fifteen
seconds on goals, because it's not a process, I'm right in
there pitching right on top of him. I encourage him.

I say, in essence, something on the order of "What goal
might you have for this session?" Indifferent, not fixing
him with anything. He might have most anything, you see?
And he says, "Well, blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blahblah, comm
lag, comm lag, so forth." I'd say, "You know, this session
here. And what goals - what do you want to get out of the
session?" I elaborate the question. And comm lag, comm lag,
comm lag, you know, "What session? What session? Where?
Who? Which? What?" And I say, "Just any old goal, you know?
Any little thing that you would care to get ahold of?"

And he says, "Well, there is some small thing I would like
to do during this session. I would like to - I would like to
make OT." And goddamn, if that's his goal, you've had it.
And you say, "Fine. Thank you. Good. Okay. Good. Fine.
Thank you. Okay. Good," until the pc looks up after this
interiorization and looks at you, and you say, "Phew! All
right, now...

You go right into PT Problem, and its proper wording is, is
"Do you have anything worrying you so much that you will
have a difficult time keeping your attention on auditing?"
That's it, see? Don't run a process. That's what you want.

And if he says, "No," and the needle drops off its pin, you
ask him again. And then, when he finally comes up with
something, "Well, I did have a little difficulty this
morning." You say, "Describe the problem to me." And when
the pc does, you say, "Does that problem exist in present
time, now?" You could also say, "Does that problem exist in
present time now, right here, in this auditing room, during
this session, right at this instant, in the physical
universe, as it reaches out there right this instant?
Does... ?" See, we don't care how far you might go on that,
but your pc is liable to believe you're being sarcastic
after a while or something.

And if the pc thinks that it does, the auditor says, "What
part of that problem could you be responsible for?" And he
runs that as a repetitive process. But he doesn't run it
very long before he asks again, "Describe the problem to
me." Oh, he's been running it, "Let's see, I could be
responsible for her head and I could be responsible for his
chest and I could be responsible for this and responsible
for that," and so forth. And before he goes very long, you
say, "Describe the problem to me." Now, you can say,
"Describe it again. Describe the problem to me again." But
certainly you say, "Describe the problem to me."

"Oh," he says, "The problem - the problem." Well, his first
problem was because his wife was running away with the
chauffeur. Now he describes to you an entirely different
aspect of it. She didn't get his breakfast and you say,
"Does that problem exist in present time now?" And he says,
"Present? No." He says, "No." You say, "All right. Describe
the problem to me." You want the problem that does exist in
present time. He says, "I haven't got one." You say, "Fine.
Let's get on with the session."

You got it?

Audience: Got it. Right. Yes, wow!

Now, the reason that command is put in there that way is it
keeps both auditor and pc on what a PT problem is.

I'll tell you what a PT problem isn't. Those of you who
have never run any Dianetic auditing occasionally,
occasionally have a little difficulty with some Dianetic
phenomena that simply pops up. Do you know that you can
return a fellow to a - argument he had with his mother when
he was seven years old and get a bop on the meter? You
return him, see? Now, if you said, "Do you have a present
time problem with your mother?" he would say yes. Why does
he say yes? Because he's in the present time of the
argument with his mother when he was seven years old. You
got that? So he has a present time problem in seven years
old. But he doesn't have one now in the auditing room, in
this MEST universe. Now all you'd have to do is say to him,
"Come up to present time. Do you have a problem now?" and
you wouldn't get a drop.

In other words, any argument, any problem or any difficulty
he has ever been into, so long as he has a reactive mind,
will get a drop on the meter. And what auditors are doing,
left and right, is they're returning the person on the
track to this morning or yesterday when there was a
difficulty, getting a drop on it and then trying to flatten
it. Do you know that you are running Dianetic auditing and
you might as well erase it as a lock? Do you know that? Hm?
The best possible process if you are doing that is simply
to erase it; good old Book One. But it's certainly not a PT
problem.

All right, the fellow raced across the street and almost
got hit with a taxicab, comes into the auditing session
going ha-aha-aha, and you run this - you say to him, "Do
you have anything worrying you so much that you will have a
difficult time keeping your attention on auditing?" And he
says, "Boy!" he says, "that taxicab - it almost killed me!"
And you say, "Well, all right, describe the problem to me."
And he says, "Well, I was going across the street and this
fellow brushed my coattails and he sneered at me and so
forth. And he called me a Republican. And I won't take that
from anybody." And you say, "Does that problem exist in
present time now?" Now, right there his present time
problem is going to fold up. He says, "Why, no! Ha-ha-ha.
Whew!"

What gag did you use? You said, "Come up to present time,"
but you said it in some other way. He isn't at this moment
running across the street in front of a taxicab, in the
present time problem.

Now, it's quite serious not to get one of these and not to
flip it out, but the problem must exist in the physical
universe now. And when you don't get that problem which
exists right now and don't handle it, your pc's profile is
going to freeze right where it is. It's not going to change
one single bit. But it is so easy to get them up that
you're liable to overlook at some time or another the
difficulty you will occasionally have in getting one into
view. But they are gotten into view with just those commands.

He says, "No, I don't have a problem," and falls off the
pin. Well, it's up to you to direct his attention around a
little bit. Another way of going about it would be to run a
process on him for a short time and do CCH 0 again. And if
you have any suspicion that there's a PT problem, you
alternate CCH 0 in its entirety with the auditing until you
get it.

Now, if you hang around on a PT problem for the rest of the
twenty-five hours, we again believe you're simply wasting
auditing. You're not confronting auditing.

The way to do it is to hit this thing in ten minutes max,
CCH 0 out of the way, and you're off on the track like a
startled gazelle. And you're into auditing.

Now, if CCH 0 wasn't satisfactory to you, or just because
you want to do it, there is no reason why at the end of an
hour with your preclears - the process you are running,
reasonably flat again and deintensified, whatever process
you were running - there is no reason why you can't do CCH 0
again. And you do CCH 0 again and again and again and again
and again and again and again until the doggone meter stops
dropping on PT problem. But don't hang around at the
beginning of session because it's not auditing and won't
change the preclear. All you're going to do is as-is his
havingness for hours and get no auditing done. It's a
wonderful way to waste auditing.

If CCH 0 didn't work, well, CCH 0 isn't a process. Audit
him for a while and come back to it. So it didn't work
again, so audit him for a while and come back to it. And
what do you know, you'll find a great basic. You will find
that auditing changes people but CCH 0 merely makes
auditing possible. And you will find him getting more and
more into session, the longer and longer you do this, no
matter what you are running on him. So you clean CCH 0 and
then you get some auditing done.

If you couldn't clear up CCH 0 to your complete
satisfaction, the first pass over - he didn't have a goal.
You don't sit around and argue with him for two and a half
hours about goals! He's sitting there and he says, "I don't
have any goal, you know. Life is just life. You know how it
is. I suppose the only goal I could have for this session
you wouldn't even listen to." Be a little persuasive,
fifteen seconds' worth, twenty seconds' worth, but no more!
And say, "Well, that's okay, old boy." And go on to PT
problem and go right on down through CCH 0 and get onto
what you are doing in that session. Do it a little bit
more, get it run a little bit flat and let's go all over it
again.

And let's say, "Well, what-what-what goal did you say you
had for this session?" you know? He says, "I didn't."
"Well, do you have a goal now?" "Well, I at least could
have a goal of making you shut up about it." "Fine! Thank
you! Let's roll!" Boy, that's an improvement.

Now, because it's a cut communication goal, you'd clear CCH
0 again about an hour later. And about an hour later, or
whenever you could run a process and get it flat and get
back to it, you would run CCH 0 once more. And you would
ask him, "What goal might you have for this session now?"
"Oh, to be able to endure auditing." "Fine."

Well, that's almost good enough, but you suspected he also
was nursing a PT problem so you ask him about it again and
you say, "Do you have anything worrying you so much you
will have a difficult time keeping your attention on
auditing?" Or, if you ask CCH 0 the second time, "that you
are having a difficult time keeping your attention on
auditing?" "No. Internal Revenue just seized all of my bank
accounts this morning but that's all. I suppose I shouldn't
let that get in the road of auditing because I'm being
audited, you see, to overcome Internal Revenue, and that's
why I'm being audited." "Oh, you do have a goal for this
session?" "Oh, I do, yeah, that's right."

"All right, well, is that problem really worrying you now?"
"Well, come to think about it, that's all I've thought
about for days." And you would say, "Well, describe the
problem to me." "Well, it's like this. It's this big bunch
of goons and they used to have them only in Chicago and now
they've moved them into Washington." And here they go, and
he describes this problem to you, but you make him describe
it as a problem. Don't just let him describe a bunch of bad
terminals. Make him describe that problem and eventually
he'll line it up so that it's Internal Revenue versus Jones
in the auditing chair, see? And he's got two terminals
counter-opposed and he'll get all kinds of cognitions just
lining this up, see?

And then you run it on: "What part of that problem could
you be responsible for?" "Invent a problem of comparable
magnitude to that problem." Either one of them is good.

Now, "Responsible for" simply keys it out. Problem of
Comparable Magnitude runs it as a process. "Invent a
problem of comparable magnitude" is a very good process and
would take care of it from here till the end of time.

But any responsibility thing has for its therapy value only
the cognitions the preclear gets while running it and it
itself simply keys it out. So a lock came in, so you run
"What part of the lock could you be responsible for?" And
the lock will key out, usually, unless the preclear is
totally bogged down with a present time problem - isn't
in-session in the first place. Hasn't told you about the
present time problem. You're running responsibility for
past auditing. All you're going to do is key that auditing out.

Of course, nothing is going to happen to a preclear as long
as a present time problem is sitting right on top of the case.

Now, the trick is not to spend the whole session starting a
session. The trick is to start it now. And you just start
one just like this: "Is it all right with you if we begin
the session now?" Okay with the pc, "The session is started."

Now, why do you not say, "begun"? Well, "begun" is an
indefinite moment in time and you want him to know that you
are already rolling it, so you use a little bit of a
strange word there like Start-C-S or something like that.
And you could say simply, "Start" and you would start a
session. But this is the auditing command which works best:
"The session is started."

The goals: "What goals might you have for this session?" Be
sure to end the session with "Have we gained anything of
your goal at the session's beginning?" And he says, "What
goal?" you know? And then he suddenly remembers and this
puts him on the auditing time track and actually brings him
off the end of the session and makes him realize he's gone
somewhere.

And then you run the PT problem, "Do you have anything
worrying you so much that you will have a difficult time
keeping your attention on auditing?" If the pc has, we say,
"Describe the problem to me." And when the pc does, "Does
that problem exist in present time now?" And if the pc
thinks it does, we can key it out with, "What part of that
problem could you be responsible for?" Or we could finish
off this problem forever and aye by "Invent a problem of
comparable magnitude to that problem," but it takes a bit
longer to do that particular one.

Now, these are repetitive questions, these last two, but no
further descriptive name is allowed the auditor in this
command.

Now, you cannot describe the present time problem in the
command about the present time problem. And every time you
have done so, you have mucked up this one, "Describe the
problem to me" because the auditor is evaluating for the
preclear and it's against the Auditor's Code to make a
descriptive title for the problem. It is the problem or
that problem. It is never, "Invent a problem of comparable
magnitude to Bill." That is wrong with magnitude because
it's evaluation for the preclear, Auditor's Code break, and
he will consider it so after a little while.

He described the problem. He's the fellow that said it
existed. He described it and then you ran "Invent a problem
of comparable magnitude to that problem," but not "to
Bill." And after he wibble-wobbled on it a little while,
this problem goes all astray in his mind and he can't
assemble the thing and you've got to come back and make him
describe it all over again. And when you make him describe
it all over again you've got it made because the therapy
comes under the heading, in this particular technique, of
realizing what the problem is or what it is not. So you're
much more anxious to ask again this question, "Describe the
problem to me." And "Does that problem exist in present
time now?" You're much more anxious to ask those two than
you are, "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that
problem."

And if you ever say, "Invent a problem of comparable
magnitude to Bill, to your wife, to this, to that, to the
other thing," you are just cutting your throat on PT
problem. You've described it. How can you then ask him to
describe it again? It's not permitted for the auditor to
tell the preclear he has certain problems. And I repeat,
it's an Auditor's Code break.

Now, when you've got those out of the road, and they can be
gotten out of the road - swish - we get then into auditing
itself. And as soon as we get into auditing, we get into
such things as your SCS, which is just standard commands.
You get into Connectedness which has some variations of
commands.

When you have somebody who isn't looking at an object and
you say, "You get the idea of making that window shade
connect with you." And he looks over at the door and he
says, "Okay." You just shift gears and you say, "Look at
that object. You get the idea of that object connecting
with you." Or "You get the idea of making that object
connect with you," which is the proper command, the last one.

On a blind human being you have to say, "Feel that object,"
and "You get the idea of making that object connect with
you." Well, oddly enough, you cannot describe the object to
a blind person. You don't say, "Feel that wall" or "Feel
this ashtray." You use, bluntly, just "object." You say,
"Feel this object," and "You get the idea of making that
object connect with you." And you just use it. You use
"object" there, use "object" in the other auditing command
when you have, "Look at that door. You get the idea of
making that object connect with you," see? And that's with
the physical body's eyes.

If a person isn't looking at things with the physical
body's eyes, you cannot be sure that he will not tear his
havingness to ribbons. And even when he is exterior, he's
liable to start pulling locks off because if he's exterior,
he very often is making pictures (not necessarily) but he's
making pictures of the object and looking at the picture
and he's not looking at the object at all. And he will
usually try to do this. The worse off he is, the less he
will confront MEST objects, so you must be very, very plain
about this particular one.

Now, on scouting, you say just this question, "How do you
feel about men, women, children, rubies, cats, dogs," and
so forth. And you just scout on the meter with two-way
comm, steering him around.

Now, if the pc reads high on the tone arm, gets
inconsistent lie reaction, use this: "What have you had to
be responsible for?" and use that as your scouting question
and keep clearing up parts of it. "Well, what part of that
have you had to be responsible for? He says, "Well, I had
to be responsible for dressing myself." "Well, what part of
dressing yourself have you had to be responsible for?" And
then you finally narrow it down and you find items of
clothing and other things like this was sticking on the
meter, and you just keep sorting it out. You're trying to
clear the meter all the time you're scouting. Your end goal
is to clear the meter on most things and stick them on some
things.

And you run this cycle: you try to stick the meter and then
you try to clear the stick with any associated bric-a-brac
that you possibly can find connected with that object.

You say, "Boys. Little boys." See, you say, "Boys." It
sticks. All right, now we say, "Little boys. Big boys," you
see? "White boys." Anything you want to say, "boys,"
anything connected with "boys" - and you keep sweeping off
qualifications of "boys." And they keep freeing, they keep
freeing, they keep freeing and all of a sudden "choir boys"
just won't move! But now, oddly enough, "boys" clears. But
"choir boys," wow! See, fixed! And you follow down "choir
boys" and you got it made. Well, those are the commands of
scouting.

And as we get into the rest of this, we have just your
standard Help bracket on general Help and then we have the
Help on an item. This is the best bracket I know for Help
on an item:

How could you help a (blank)?

How could a (blank) help you?

How could another person help a (blank)?

How could a (blank) help another person?

How could a (blank) help itself?

How could you help yourself?

How could I help you? and

How could you help me?

And that is the best item, and there's no reason for you to
write that down busily because you'll have a Command Sheet
early this afternoon that has all of this on it that I am
giving you right this moment.

Now, the Command Sheet, as we get down the line, does not
admit of an extensive clearing process. It only admits of
a fast, rapid, get the English definition for the word, get
the general meaning of the phrase.

And you say, "What is the usual definition of the English
(or other language) word for (whatever it is)?" And "What
is the usual definition of the English word for (blank)?"
And he says, "Well, it's ..." You say, "Apples" and he
says, "Cabbages." Well, you've had it. That's the usual
thing, according to him. And he will run cabbages until you
clear it again. He can't look at apples so he always says
"cabbages."

Now, you're going to have a Command Sheet on this, the ACC
Command Sheet, but I'm going to take it up later. And all
I've been able to take up with you today on these commands
has just been getting a session on the road. Now, I want
you to get these sessions on the road; I don't want you
fooling around.

Don't keep monkeying around with stuff that isn't auditing,
because CCH 0 is not auditing, never has been and never
will be. Do you understand that? Get it on the road.

Now, if I find anybody in these last three weeks not
getting the session on the road, so forth, why, I'm going
to make sure that they get a little tap. Do you understand?
And if you feel a little tap right back of your left ear,
you just realize, boy, that session is not on the road in
my opinion.

Get auditing done. And it's the number of commands you get
per unit of time.

And there's one more thing that I'm going to tell you
before the end of this lecture. Don't you ever let me catch
you giving an auditing command to a preclear who does not
have his attention on you. He is interiorized,
interiorized, interiorized in the last command.

You say, "Yes, good, fine, swell, fine, fine, good. Did you
get that command? Well, that's fine, good, fine, fine,
fine! Hey! Good!" The pc finally looks up and he says,
"Dope! Dope! Dope! Oh, hello!" See? And you say, "Good."
And you give him the next auditing command. Otherwise
you're just going to pile your commands up on a ridge and a
ridge isn't a pc.

The end product of TR 2 is get the pc's attention.

[Please note: At this point in the lecture, a gap exists in
the original master recording. We now rejoin the class
where the lecture resumes.]

The reason you run a PT problem: getting the pc's attention
so you can give him an auditing command. And what is the
reason of goals? It's getting the pc's attention so that
you can run an auditing command.

And what is the reason of auditing? Getting this poor dog
to present time so he won't be still going over Creative
Processing on the very early stages of the track. Do you
understand that?

Don't go auditing pcs without getting their attention any
more than you would try to sell a fellow tractors who
wasn't in the room with you. More salesmen fall flat on
their faces by selling tractors to people who are still
arguing with their wives at home. Yeah, the guy's sitting
in his office, but he's at home arguing with his wife, and
you're trying to sell him a tractor. You never will.

And you're never going to be able to sell a pc an auditing
command unless he has looked at you with his MEST eyes. You
got that?

Now, you can go on "feel" with the MEST eyes closed on the
theory that the thetan is awake. And once in a while you'll
get the phenomenon on an awake thetan in a body that's
asleep and you can go on giving him auditing commands. But
you certainly better know your business before you say
every thetan who is in a boil-off is in this state.

A body can go out like a light and the thetan is sitting up
there obeying those commands just like that and so on but
he can't look through the eyes. You just make sure he's
acknowledged until his attention is on you and there's some
signification of the fact. You'll get used to those things.

Now, here's your Command Sheet and it will be issued in the
very near future. And you go right on using, to the best of
your knowledge and belief, what the proper command is. When
the Command Sheet comes out, if it changes your mind on the
subject, simply change without a growl because the Command
Sheet has been worked out to help you.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


