Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 23/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 25 Nov 1999 06:15:47 -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 23/35 (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-23 (13)  30 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont. 2)

ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont. 2)

A lecture given on 30 July 1958

[Based on the clearsound version only.]

Hiya.

The mixed emotions with which you look at me today!

Anytime you bat out thirty case analyses in forty-eight
hours or less, you really have to get in there and cook.
You really do.

Two or three of you flubbed badly on - after the case
analysis. I unfortunately gave you a little latitude and
told you you could scout some more and then, of course, you
laid one in on top of it, which made the stuck button
disappear and after that you could only get a rise. That
you must be very careful of.

Just as a passing note, once you've got a meter to stick,
it is the easiest thing in the world to lay things on top
of it. And if you were to lay something on top of it which
was accumulating or adding to the case, then you will get a
problem laid in by Scientology, the resolution of which can
be rather fantastic.

You get the idea? You get a stuck button and then the
auditor comes along and he starts sticking other buttons on
top of it. He doesn't go back to the original stuck button
with any success at all because now the other things he has
added onto it are being successful in adding to the case.
Do you understand that?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

All right. So, the best thing to do is, even if the needle
is rising, you go back and take the last thing that stuck
and run it. You get the little rule on the thing?

This is the thirteenth lecture of the 20th ACC, July 30th,
1958. The title of this lecture should be additional material
on the Command Sheet or the Command Sheet continued.

First, however, let's take up another subject: a subject
called responsibility. I'll probably wind up in giving this
Command Sheet in the last two minutes of the lecture but I
must say something about responsibility right here at this
stage.

Responsibility has many definitions. It has many aspects,
manifestations. Responsibility can be simply taking care of
something. It can be controlling something. But in the
final analysis, it is admitting some share of the survival
of, taking part and sharing in the survival of, if a thing
is surviving.

Therefore, Help resolves responsibility. You run Help,
it'll unwind responsibility. Help undoes responsibility.
The therapeutic value of Responsibility as a button, and
when being run, totally depends upon the knowingness which
is blown into view. So, if you run Responsibility with many
resultant cognitions on the part of the preclear, then the
cognitions themselves will make a relatively permanent gain.

But if you run Responsibility without additional
knowingness or cognitions, you might as well forget about it.

This is not true of Help. Help can be run in the foggiest
mass of no-cognition you could imagine, into the center of
identifications and cross-inverted identifications. You're
not even identifying with the subject anymore, you re
identifying with something which is the reverse of the
subject.

For instance, a fellow was good so long that he identifies
everything with evil. You get the idea? The minister's
son's plight.

And Help is not dependent upon cognitions, evidently, but
simply will run! And the muddiness of the preclear finally
straightens up and he eventually does get some cognitions.
But even if he didn't, something was going to happen.

Now Responsibility, then, is a limited technique but has
great exploratory value and you should regard it as having
exploratory value. Just a moment ago I was talking to Dick
about this and we brought up a point here that's quite
interesting. If you run Responsibility on somebody who has
a present time problem, then everything you ran
Responsibility on so nicely will key back in, short time
later. So, it's a good test; it's an interesting test.

You run Responsibility on Father and the pc at the end of a
short period of time begins to feel much better, he tells
you. You let him go out of session and an hour or so or
three or four hours later, he comes back and tells you that
the problem with Father is still all there again. It isn't
the Responsibility doesn't work, not at all. It's that you
were running a pc who was out of session and could not
cognite. Simple - simple as that. It's awfully elementary.

Responsibility requires cognitions in order to work and a
pc who is out of session to a greater or lesser degree
doesn't cognite, which is quite interesting. But if you
were to run Help on somebody, the thing that you ran Help
on would to some degree, without a cognition, key out and
stay out. Might not permanently change his case or
personality or anything like that, but it would certainly
key out and stay out. Not so with Responsibility.

This is all based on limited observation, of course, but
the way I've been using it is an actual test of an existing
PT problem on occasion. Have somebody run Responsibility on
a preclear for a short time and then ask the preclear if
that which was addressed has come back again, and if it
has, then you go for a PT problem and you really find one
that time.

It's a question, then, of being out of session. All of
auditing cures somebody's out-of-sessionness. A pc is
always to some slight degree out of session and as his
auditing continues, if it is doing well, he is getting more
and more into session with periodic and momentary bursts
out of session, don't you see? Short, shorter and shorter.
And eventually he can actually tolerate being totally
in-session. And the only person who can tolerate total
in-sessionness is a Clear.

This is very, very fascinating. But it's so awfully easy to
understand. If this individual has no anxieties about his
environment, he, of course, can sit in the chair and relax
utterly and therefore follow the auditing commands
perfectly. But this we only get from a Clear.

So, your pc is always to some degree out of session, to
some degree out of session. At the beginning of an intensive,
he is further out of session - if you're improving his
case - than he is at the end of the intensive. If you
cleared him, he will be practically totally in-session
at the end of the intensive.

What do we mean by "totally in-session"? That is,
selectively in and out...

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

He is more or less in and out of session as we roll along,
but he's out of session to the degree that he has anxieties
concerning the environment.

Now, these peak when he has an unexpected or unusual
present time problem. Do you understand that? He's kind of
used to having all of the aberrations he's got. Even if you
restimulate one, he already has the experience of having
had it for some time, a few hundred million years or
something like that. You know, he lived with it. Every time
he saw a post he went mm, you know, a little bit. Something
went neuggh. Every time he saw a girl, he says, "Walk easy,
boy, walk easy." But now all of a sudden, a bill collector
is waiting home on the front door. Now, this has future and
it has potential and it has different stress than he's used
to. So, all you've done is pique his anxiety about his
environment, and he's further out of session by about ten
thousand times than merely because he is aberrated. Do you
see this as a sudden stress? Now, in clearing somebody,
you're collecting a preclear from all over the universe.
You're collecting one - you're collecting his dispersed
attention. It can go so far as to collect the remote
viewpoints from which he is viewing things. It's quite
remarkable. There are some specific techniques that show an
individual to be all over around himself. Oh, that sounds
real weird, but you will all of a sudden have somebody who
is looking at the room from the right side and seeing it
from the left side at the same time and is not able to get
the room into focus in any way. And even if you, in extreme
cases, put a blindfold over his eyes, he would be seeing
the same silly setup.

I remember one in particular who was an archery expert and
he was very worried when this happened. The points from
which he was looking were so many, so complex and so
confused, were so invariably mixed up that in auditing
itself he was concerned. But then he went out that Sunday
to the archery range and man, he was looking at that target
from way over to the right while he was looking at the
target from way over to the left, while he was in back of
the bow pulling the string on the target. And when he fired
one arrow, it was at what target, from which bow? Now, here
was a case of: not only was the person's attention fixed on
many things, but the point from which the attention was
coming was varied. Now, how complex can you get? You might
say he had sets of eyes all around him, extending somewhere
in the neighborhood of, I didn't ever ask him, but I
imagine it must have been four or five feet to either side.
He had remote viewpoints. He didn't just look through his
eyes; he was looking from everywhere.

Now, look-a-here, that is a real anxiety. You not only have
to keep your eye on everything but you have to make sure
that you aren't there yourself doing the looking, because
what you're looking at might bite. Now, there is composite
out-of-sessionness.

Now, as you pick up the pc's attention from here, there and
everyplace, you're picking up at the same time the things
he is mocking up to keep his attention fixed on. But why
does he keep them mocked up? Well, they're so dangerous he
has to watch them! And in this you have a totality of
explanation of exactly what a preclear is doing and what
a Clear isn't doing.

So, you're deintensifying the anxiety of an individual and
bringing him up to a more real attitude of security and
with this you get, of course, more thereness. The
individual does not have so many bugaboos which are
frightening him out of being where he is. So, starting with
this peak thing called a PT problem, where he'd better not
be in the auditing room - as a matter of fact, he'd better
not be locatable at all! One thing wrong with being in the
auditing room is people might have the address of the
auditing room! Do you get the idea? He'd better not walk
out of the auditing room either. He certainly had better
not be home or at the other end of a telephone because Lord
knows what's going to happen. Why, as a matter of fact, his
recent life in the Greek Empire taught him exclusively that
when your wife was trying to collect alimony or support
money, it usually occurred (when it wasn't at once paid
with interest) that one of your favorite servants slipped a
bit of hemlock into your morning brew. And you kicked the
bucket with some convulsiveness. All these little lessons
one has learned.

Now, they key right up on a PT problem. But even if the PT
problem isn't there, you are still dealing with somebody
who had better not be there. And the more he is capable of
being there, the more responsibility he can take for what
is going on there. But if he isn't there at all, he dare
not take any responsibility for being there. So a PT
problem situation is a no-responsibility for the session.

Going on an upgrade to a person who is just normally
anxious and insecure, very little responsibility for the
session - some - possibly as high as being nice to the
auditor. The responsibility level: being nice to the auditor.
Auditor says, "How are you this morning?" Responsibility
level: smile and say, "Fine." See? No further
responsibility of any kind. If you please the auditor,
you've at least got the auditing room kind of there, under
control, you see? And you can go on worrying about all
those very, very important problems, such as the missing
state of ammunition in spaceship X-97 which has only been
wrecked on planet Zeknu for the last eight billion years,
you see? These important considerations can be gone into
much more thoroughly.

Obsessive agreement is one of the mechanisms used. Pc isn't
there, he's merely agreeing with everything you say. Now,
if you get one of these agreement cases with a PT problem
on top of it, you've got real trouble because they go into
an hypnotic trance. They dare not be there to such a degree
that they aren't.

You've got a total irresponsibility for the session. And if
your auditing command included such a thing as, "Get the
idea of being a frog," they might leave the auditing
session croaking. Literally true.

The common denominator of all hypnotism is irresponsibility
To create an hypnotic trance it is only necessary to
demonstrate to an individual that he has no responsibility
for anything in his vicinity of any kind whatsoever and the
hypnotist will take care of it all. Hypnotist is going to
take care of everything. Well, compare this to the attitude
some pcs take toward the auditor.

You'll find the agreement case, the hypnotic case - they're
similar - just liable to be in this sort of thing. You could
actually produce a considerable change in this case if you
were a little bit dishonest and merely wanted to produce
considerable effect. You'd simply explain to the preclear
how he had no further responsibility  -he already has little
enough - just explain to him how he has no further
responsibility for the auditing session at all. And now
tell him that he is nine feet tall, feels wonderful and so
forth. He'll go around for three or four days telling
everybody how he is nine feet tall and feeling wonderful.
Of course, they will wonder a little bit that he's still
got his cold and he's still got this and he's still got
that, but he will believe it for a very limited time. He's
in a trance.

Now, a trance would be defined as that state where the
environment is so dangerous, the past and future so
unpromising, that the only safe thing to do is take all
thought, orders or anything from somewhere else, not
necessarily from one source, but from somewhere else. You
have an explanation for hypnotism in this mechanism.

Now, it's not your job as an auditor to knock anybody's
responsibility down, but to increase it. How do you
increase it? By taking their attention off all of those
things which of necessity they think it must be on -
obsessive attention, obsessive fixation - and handle this
mechanism of mocking things up so that you can keep your
attention on them. Total explanation for the creativeness.

Now, when one mocks up very bad things, so he can keep his
attention on them, he's taking no responsibility for the
badness of the thing. Therefore, he can't admit that he is
mocking it up and you get your "I don't know what I am
doing" state of case where the individual has a reactive bank.

The reactive bank is all the bad things that the preclear
has to keep his attention on, for which he has not been
responsible, he thinks, and which at the same time he
cannot say he is mocking up. And you have your total
mechanism of the reactive bank.

If the reactive bank is that irresponsible - it's that
collection of mental image pictures known as facsimiles and
more positively classified as engrams, secondaries and
locks - if that reactive bank is something for which he can
take no faintest responsibility, he, of course, is in an
hypnotic trance with regard to it.

So therefore, he absolutely receives the orders from this
thing. They are literally received, as any old Dianeticist
can tell you, utterly and literally received. It's that
collection of pictures the pc is taking no slightest
responsibility for making because he took no slightest
responsibility for anything that was there and he copied
from. See, he takes no responsibility for the actual thing
he copied, therefore he takes no responsibility for the
copy. Therefore, he takes literal orders from these
pictures, their words, phrases, scenery and so forth. Do
you understand this? Now, this accounts for the command
value of the reactive mind. It finds the thetan in hypnotic
trance with regard to it. So, no matter whether your case
is apparently wide awake or only half awake, you're still
dealing with a relatively hypnotized person.

When this gets to be very, very savage, when the hypnotism
is so deep that it's even taking place in present time and
all you get is obsessive agreement, you say, "It's raining
today" And the preclear says, "Yes, yes, it's raining
today," and you say, "The sun is shining out today," as the
next statement. And he says, "Yes, yes, the sun is shining
out today"

"You feel fine."

"Yes, yes, I feel fine."

"You feel horrible."

"Yes, yes, I feel horrible." See?

Well, what are you looking at? You're just part of the
reactive bank as far as he's concerned. And therefore,
everything and anything you do can go in, just as though
it's a reactive bank. You see that? Hence, the seriousness
of an ARC break. An ARC break makes you something bad and
everything you say after that is liable to go in on an
hypnotic channel so therefore nothing had better go in. And
he just isn't alive to your orders. Don't be fooled by the
preclear who is a little bit antagonistic and then all of a
sudden is very agreeable. Don't be fooled by this PC.

Pc came up to me after an intensive, and somebody - this was
years ago - PC came up and said, "You've-urr-done very well
with me." And I took one look at this pc and this pc was
falling apart at the hinges. Took a look at the profile and
it had dropped and I went and got the auditor and gave the
pc another week.

Why? The pc was into propitiation. And darn you, don't you
ever mistake a pc driven into propitiation for a pc gotten
well. Don't you ever make this mistake. You can tell it in
the funny way they look at you, as a matter of fact. Yes,
they feel fine now. It's such a cautious propitiation; it's
such a cautious statement. They are so anxious to please.
The case has been worsened, not bettered. A profile would
tell you this at once. But you can always drive a pc,
particularly an antagonistic one, down to propitiation.
It's very easy to do.

Now listen, the worse off and the more hypnotic a pc is, or
a civilization, the less there is there to audit. Sure,
maybe we could dream up some kind of a lightning bolt
that'd play around the White House day and night and then
we could go down and say, "Well, we'll turn it off." And
we'd turn it off and then we'd turn it on again. Then we'd
tell people, "God's mad at the government and therefore it
better do something or other." Old-time OT trick.

Do you know the net result of that? To put people in an
hypnotic fixation, as far as you're concerned. They become
less responsible, less able. You are running in a society
then, with more crime, more perversion, more broken-down
channels, you see? So went Arabia, India; many, many
countries have already gone through this fate. Many of
them. And so, it is not a good thing to do.

Nor is it a good thing for you as an auditor to do. Because
the more you fix the attention of the pc and the more you
teach him that he cannot have any responsibility for what
is going on, the more you kick back his contributions to
the session, the more you insist on auditing him when he's
terribly dispersed, you audit him with some technique
that's over his head, why, the worse he's going to get.
That's for sure. The less pc you're going to have there,
therefore the less orders that are actually being handed
out and received. It's one thing to hand them out; it's
quite another thing to receive them. And as a result,
you've got individuals who are not going to get well and
that the next auditor is going to have more trouble with.

So there's two ways you can go: one is overbearingly on
this responsibility factor and the other is to go more and
more responsibility on the part of the preclear, more and
more in-session, which all adds up to what? More security
on the part of the pc. More confidence, more security, and
you yourself can build that in an artificial way. You build
that up with good ARC with the pc.

You give his objection some validity. Sometimes he merely
tests you out; he dreams up an objection and hands it to
you just to find out whether or not you will accept it.
After you've accepted three or four, he doesn't become
overbearing. Funny part of it is, he relaxes. If you kicked
his teeth in for objecting - if you kicked his teeth in for
objecting, he would have a bad time of it. And you'd find
out he'd just go on out of session and he'd quit. And you
have just removed your most potent ally in an auditing
session, the pc.

Now, where you have difficulty in an auditing session,
you've neglected the responsibility factor and that's for
sure. And that's about all there is to it.

The pc's responsibility for the session must be increased,
not decreased. It's all right for a pc to sit there and not
take responsibility for the session; you can't interfere
with that either. If you challenge him with it and force
him to take responsibility, not lead him to take
responsibility, he'll take less responsibility. But he
will come up through bands where his irresponsibility is
so great, that he doesn't know whether he's going to blow
session or blow the roof or settle back into apathy or just
quit, or lie down on the floor and die. He has not made up
his mind exactly what he's supposed to do at this point of
the game.

Well, you as an auditor, by simply keeping a steady hand on
the helm, and steering the session right straight on
through, will of course, be the winner. If you want to win,
you pay attention to these factors. You increase the
security of the pc in-session; you increase the ARC and by
doing this, you increase the responsibility.

Now, in light of this, we're going to take up this Command
Sheet, in the light of what I have just said. And if you
think that you can know all there is to know about auditing
by knowing a bunch of magic incantations known as commands,
you have not accepted your responsibility as an auditor.

Your responsibility as an auditor is sometimes antipathetic
to you for this reason alone: you have been the unwilling
custodian in too many lives and too many places, not here,
for people's minds and people's thoughts. And your final
end goal in all this is just this one thing: you want to
please people. You know, when a case is totally out of the
bottom, all you have to do - or with any case, by the way -
all you have to do is have him mock up people who are pleased
with his condition. In front of him, behind him, above him,
below him - that works almost all the way to the bottom. You
could probably run the case on somebody lying in a hospital
bed, dead unconscious, and they'd get it and they'd run it.

It works on anybody. It works all the way up to the top to
some degree. To maintain ARC, there must be a willingness
to please. But when all there is left is a willingness to
please, a desire to please and an obsession to please, you
can't audit, because it is the total irresponsibility to
end all irresponsibilities. And you sometimes will please
the preclear when you ought to be auditing. You understand
me? And I have actually spotted, not the dropped ashtrays,
not the covert hostility, not the meanness on the auditor's
part, but his very kindness as the principal villain in
getting auditing done. He finds the preclear is not
pleased, so he does something else. Of course, the
preclear, 90 percent of the time, is not pleased with
what he is running into; he's not pleased, that's all.

Well, if you want to please him, totally, there is a
technique you can do it with and if you find yourself
suffering from the necessity to please - only please
preclears, why just have him mock up people who are pleased
with their condition and he'll clear too. That would be
right on the dramatization line, see? Q-and-A, changing a
command off, because of the auditor's feeling the preclear
doesn't quite like what's going on, is a cruelty Every time
the pc says he doesn't like something, something like that,
take it up! As-is it and carry right on with what you're
doing. If you Q-and-A with him too, you've sunk him. You're
talking to a bank by that time, not a pc. The bank has much
more authority on a pc than the pc, remember? Now, as I
say, in light of this, we're going to take up these
auditing commands. They are not necessarily the most
pleasing version, but they are certainly close to the most
effective.

I'm just going to take these off and read this right
straight down from the top. [See HCOB 28 July 58, COMMAND
SHEET FOR HGC, CLEAR PROCEDURE] ON ALL COMMANDS: BEFORE
AUDITOR GIVES THEM, HE MAKES CERTAIN HE HAS PC'S ATTENTION
ON HIM AGAIN AND OFF LAST QUESTION.

Now, why? Please, why? Of course, nothing I have said in
the first half-hour of this lecture has anything to do with
that statement, does it? Do you realize, by piling commands
on top of a pc who is already interiorized into the last
command, every time he tries to come out of session, he
keeps running into your orders which are now parked on
ridges. And he'll go out of the session auditing himself.
See? He saved up all of your commands, it looks like.

If you're trying to collect somebody's attention, then for
the love of Pete, realize that you could devote an auditing
session just to TR 1, TR 2. Just forget the rest of it
across the boards and just do a splendid TR 1, TR 2. You
know? No - no process. See? Nothing. You just give a command;
when he executes it, you acknowledge it. We don't even care
if it's duplicative or not.

You could, absolutely, you could take a room full of
people - not Scientologists - you could take some people
that are kind of interested in you or what your work is.
Somebody makes the mistake of mentioning that he might be
interested in hearing what you do. You know, somebody makes
this error and you're right in there, pitching.

And somebody asks you to give a session. What is one of
these sessions that do so much good? Well, you have two
choices. One is to take the host, throw him back into birth
or a prenatal, roll him up in a ball on the floor, pat him
on the head, tell him, "That's a good boy," and put him
back in his chair again and bow to the rest of the people
present. It's very effective. It's good showmanship, I'm
sure. But it's...

Once in a while you'll get one of these: you're trying to
put on a good session, they go back into a prenatal, roll
up in a ball and go on the floor, in spite of anything you
can do.

But the safest thing to do is just do TR 1, TR 2, not even
with a duplicative command, you see? Duplicative comes a
little bit later up the line, doesn't it? TR 1, TR 2 - you
just give him an ashtray and you say, "Look at the ashtray"
And the fellow, "Well, I'll do anything for a game, you
know?" Looks at the ashtray.

And you say, "Thank you. Good, good, good." And you keep on
acknowledging him until his attention is back on you again,
see? And you say, "Fine. Now, turn the ashtray over." And
he says, "Don't know what I'm doing, you know?" And the
fellow then says - fellow then says, "Well, I did." And you
say, "Good, good. Fine, fine, fine. Swell. Okay, fine.
Okay, swell, fine, okay, good! I got that. Thank you very
much for turning the ashtray over. Good, good." And the
fellow, "What's this all about?" See? And he looks at you.
And you say, "Now, notice that the ashtray is green." And
the fellow says, "Hm. Yeah," he says, "mm-hm."

And you say, "Good, fine, okay Good! Good! Very good.
Tha-a-a-nk you."

"All right. All right."

And you say, "Now, notice that it is an ashtray."

"Yeah, uh-huh."

"Good, fine. Good, fine, okay, good, fine. Thank you. Thank
you very much. Well, thank you.

"Yeah, yeah..

And you say, "Does the room look any brighter to you?"

And believe me, you pick most people off the street and run
that for about ten, fifteen minutes and so forth, the
fellow will say, "Yeah! You're sure brighter to me. As a
matter of fact, you're the only real thing in the room."
Rest of the people sit around, that you're doing this in an
audience for, and they'll say, "What was he doing? What was
the mysteriousness of the ashtray? Maybe - maybe this has
something to do with spiritualism. Maybe it's the sacred
fire," or something of the sort, you know? They're just
totally adrift. They didn't know that all you did for about
ten minutes was just collect somebody's attention with
great thoroughness.

Weirdest things will happen. Why do you suppose you see
elderly men giving babies watches and gold teeth and things
like that to play with when the baby's crying? One of the
first thing a man will do - a woman picks the baby up; she's
got to have all of it right away quick - but the first thing
that a man will do who is very inexperienced along this
line is try to attract the baby's attention, if he doesn't
know any - if he doesn't know his business, you know? He
tries to attract the baby's attention; he'll show him a
bright gadget, "Da-da-da-da-da-da-da. Oh, don't cry
Da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da." What's he trying to do? He's
trying to yank his attention off of whatever it's fixed on
and back into a gold watch or gold teeth or candy or
something of the sort.

It's amazing. I found this out about girls very
unfortunately, very, very young. I found out when they were
mad at you, their attention yanked off of it very easily by
giving them a box of candy, a new dress, or something like
that. Disillusioned me. I put it this way to myself when I
found out how easy this was - I put it this way to myself:
well, their anger was insincere. I don't know what I
considered sincere anger was.

Then later on - later on - later on I finally discovered the
horrible truth that they merely wanted reassurance of your
affection; that was the only thing they wanted. And when
you presented this in a solid mass form, why, they were
convinced. And that was about all there was to it; it was a
very simple mechanism. Served to collect their attention
quick from the old quarrel. What was easier? It's too bad
every young man doesn't learn this and then there would be
a very, very calm civilization here, I'm sure. Frankly, all
you'd need to know about a marriage.

Guys around the organization have marital troubles,
something like this, I get hold of them, give them some
advice like this. Of course, the cat's out of the bag now.
What I'd tell them is out of the bag so it probably won't
work now.

Yeah, you give girls things because you like them and to
centralize their attention off of all the bad things you've
done or said.

Well, if you as an auditor give a pc a good process and get
his case up the line and solved, what have you got? What
have you done? You've taken his attention off of all the
bad things you've done and said, too.

Awful lot of ARC breaks are patched up by finding one good,
valid Rock and running it out. Got the idea? All right.
That's the single most important thing in auditing, the
collection of attention and the holding of it. But the
attention must be held with the responsibility of the
person giving it, not with an hypnotic trick. You can't
ever startle or shock a pc into giving attention. His
attention comes to you to the degree that he is taking
responsibility for the eight dynamics. This is the easiest
way in the world to diagnose a case, if we must use that
nasty word "diagnose." It's just the degree of attention
that the person can exert during an auditing session.

By the way, the test of this is, some people, you just
mention things to them or when they start to get up toward
Clear - on their way - you just mention something to them,
it blows. You can find the most beautiful Rock - you find
a whole Rock that has to do with cutting people's heads off
and machines that cut their heads off and beams that blow
their heads off - and boy, this is a gorgeous Rock and just
all you have to do is mention it, and it blows. Oh, how
disappointing. Never got a chance to audit it.

In other words, toward the end, why, Rocks will start
blowing on just two-way comm. Well, that's because the pc
can exert a sufficiency of attention on any given thing,
which attention is under his control, to actually cause
himself to realize or know or blow or as-is anything that
confronts him. Now, that's quite interesting.

Now, we've already gone over CCH 0 here, but I'll read the
commands here.

"Is it all right with you if we begin this session now?"
"The session is started." Now, that's good. "Session is
started." A good substitute command and so forth is simply:
"Start!" And the person says, "Start what?"

"Start the session. You're in session now. Sit down."

And don't let me catch you going around gassing with a
preclear for fifteen or twenty minutes and then starting a
session. Boy, he's been in-session for the longest time and
the second you get him to sit down in the chair and start
talking to him, don't lead up to a long prelude. Auditing,
to some auditors, is unfortunately a prelude to auditing.
They never really get down to auditing. Well, the best way
to cure that - best way to cure that is never monkey around
and then start a session. Best way to cure that is set them
down, start the session, straighten out the E-Meter. Get
the idea? And just put the start of session ahead of
everything you're going to do connected with the session
and you're always safe.

Otherwise your pc is liable to go into session; you're not
in session but the pc is. And then the pc is going to be
very upset when he finds out that he is in-session but
you're not in session and three-quarters of an hour later
you have said, "Start the session now.

He says, "Start the session? Holy cats!"

Well, you've just taught him he was wrong about being
in-session. Whoa-ho-ho. Now, you want him to go into
session, huh? Well, you want him to go into session
according to the rules, not the way he went into session.

You'd be very safe if you met your pc at the bottom of the
stairs and you said, "Start!" and took him on upstairs and
sat him down and discussed the lunch hour and put him down
in the chair and adjusted the E-Meter cans and so forth,
and then went to: "What goal might you have for this
session?" You want to get the beginning and end of the
session adjusted properly. The end of a session is an end
of a session and boy, when you end a session, end it! And
it's very interesting that if you've ended a session, your
pc continues to be in-session, you'd better end it again.
You just better work on ending it. You just better get his
attention and end it.

He's liable to say, "Boy, that was ..." You know,
postpartum yap-yaps about what went on and so forth are all
right but he is still acting as though he's obeying
auditing commands and he's still giving you something that
sounds like it's running right on in-session. For heaven's
sakes, end the session again.

You say, "Look, look at me, look at me." The guy looks at
you, you know, and you say, "END OF SESSION!" Pfhew. See,
something like that.

And he says, "Oh ho-ho, ho-ho, oh, session ended. Oh, I get
it, I get it, I - yeah." And you say, "Now - now, the session
has ended. We can talk about the session all you want to,
but we're not still in-session, you understand?" "No, we're
not, are we? Well, what do you know?

You know, I've seen pcs come in to an HGC auditor and all
week long be in-session. You know, every time they see him,
they're in-session. Every time. You have that happen to
you. That's just a fixated attention that goes on the same
scale as obsessive agreement and hypnotic lines, and so forth.

And the pc who was very bad off, of course, never found out
when he started session, never found out when he ended it.
Don't be surprised if he's totally in it.

"What goal might you have for this session?" we have
already covered.

The present time problem: "Do you have anything worrying
you so much that you will have a difficult time keeping
your attention on auditing?" That is there with malice
aforethought. That's to point up the purpose of a PT
problem and what it is. Make the auditor say it every time,
the pc will get it too and he won't start g-handing you a
bunch of garbage off the track. Been a long time since some
of you have heard that word "garbage" but it's been
restimulated by case assessments, lately.

And if the pc tells you he does have one, you say,
"Describe the problem to me," and when the pc does, "Does
that problem exist in present time now?" And pc says that
it does - it's a fact he lost a chariot back in the Byzantium
Empire and he bet with this tout that came into the arena,
you know. And he bet him his chariot and it was all very
involved. And this - present time problem? The pc says it
is. The pc said it is. Well now, he's the final judge on
the matter, but boy, you'd better not give him very much
time on this PT problem.

You say, "Well, that's interesting. That's interesting.
Fine. Now, describe the problem to me." And the pc does,
all over again. See, you've already gone through this.
"Anything worrying you? Describe the problem to me," and
"Does that problem exist in present time now?" You see?
You've done that once and he gives you something that's way
out of present time. Then you acknowledge the fact that you
have heard it and so forth. And you say, "Describe the
problem to me." And the fellow says, "Well, so-and-so and
so-and-so and I lost this chariot and it was the matter of
the Blues and the Greens. And at that time the emperor was
married to a prostitute because he was such a Christian
emperor and he had made a law against - he'd made a law
against betting, you see? And actually..."

And you say, "That's fine. That's very good, that's very
good. Now, does that problem exist in present time, now?"
"Uh, da-a-a-a. Well, the chariot does."

And you say, "All right. That's fine. That's fine. Now,
describe the problem to me." You didn't say the problem
about the chariot; don't ever get pulled downhill by this.
That's a Q and A, see? "Describe the problem to me." And he
says, "Well, it was a yellow chariot, just like my new
Buick, and..." See? "You know," he says, "that finance
company skip man has been sitting on my front porch for two
days." You say, "Wow. Well, well. Well does that problem
exist in present time now?" And "Boy," he said, "you said
it. Boy, you said it."

And you say, "Well, that's good. Now, describe the problem
to me.

"Well, skip man sitting on my front porch and he's going to
take my new Buick and I have to park the thing blocks away
from the house. I have to hide it all the time because he's
got another set of keys and he's going to get into the
thing and he's going to go away and so forth." And he says,
"Boy," he says, "ever since I lost that chariot back in the
Byzantium Empire," he says, "nobody else is going to
repossess any of my vehicles." And you say, "Good." All
right, now, you have to ask yourself the question: do you
want this thing keyed out or run out? Well, obviously, it's
a going concern. The credit company is a collecting agency
of one kind or another and it collects all sorts of things,
new cars and people's bad tempers and so forth.

So, you just have to take your choice between the two
processes that can be run: one that will get rid of the
problem and the other one, key it out. Now, Responsibility
will simply key it out: Problem of Comparable Magnitude to
that problem and "that problem about the..." You get so
helpful, sometimes. I hear auditors saying, "That problem,
that problem about the bill collector. That problem with
your wife. Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to the
problem with your wife." Boy, that's being real helpful but
it keeps the problem from shifting. And you can run Problem
of Comparable Magnitude to it and the next thing you know,
well, the finance company will find some other way to take
care of the whole thing.

When is a problem, present time problem, over? When is it
ended? When the pc no longer has to do something about it.

Now, the two commands: "What part of that problem could you
be responsible for?" which is the temporary key-out sort of
a situation. You said the problem doesn't amount to much
and you just keyed it out - or something that may hang on for
the rest of the time you're auditing him, at which time you
would use, "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to
that problem." These are both repetitive questions and this
is a process and it follows all - these both follow all the
rules of processing. But the auditor frequently asks
"Describe that problem to me now." And "Does that problem
now exist in present time?" Or, "Does it exist in present
time now?" That is to bring the pc into a description of
the problem. You know that somebody can go on with a
predescribed problem. The auditor described the problem and
then the pc ran it and then the auditor described it and
the pc ran it, and so on. The problem never changes. Don't
be surprised if it doesn't change. There must be something
going backwards here - one kind or another.

Now, on an ARC break, you say, "Have I done something you
feel is wrong in this session?" He's liable to find all
sorts of imaginary thing - that's real or imagined. You
don't care whether you really did something or you really
didn't do something.

Don't go justifying yourself because you're trying to force
him to take responsibility by yourself getting off a
responsibility point. And the moment he finds you're
irresponsible, man, he'll go out of session so fast it'll
make your head swim. So, you mustn't ever justify your
actions, statements or mistakes. Your mistakes are your
mistakes.

Now, an ARC triangle has the letter "R" in it - reality.
Reality in a session depends upon the reality of the
session. So, you have a headache. The pc says, "Is
something wrong with you?" You say, "Well, no. It's all
right." Boy, just bust the "R" all to pieces, will you? I
mean, that's what you've succeeded in doing. You've just
broken "R" all up. You do have a headache; you've said you
didn't. And you're going to find the ARC going in the
session. You say, "Yes, I have a headache, but I can audit
you." Get that "R" in there.

"I feel you're not willing to audit me."

No reason to tell him, "Well, it's probably not your
imagination."

I settled a pc one time that was having an awfully hard
time in session. He sat down and he said more or less just
that. Just that. He said, "I feel you don't want to audit
me." He said, "I feel you're just really not interested in
my case." And I said, "You're so right." I said, "I've had
an awfully busy afternoon. I really have not been terribly
interested in your case because you've done too much
complaining; you've upset too many people. Despatches keep
coming back and forth here concerning you and your case and
I consider it a little bit of an imposition, and I think
you just wanted attention from me. That is exactly the way
I feel about it." And the pc said, "I thought that was the
way you felt about it." And the only thing he got out of it
was feeling all of a sudden that he was right.

So I said, "Under those conditions, do you still want me to
audit you?"

He said, "I'll be awfully glad if you took over the case
and looked over the case, and so forth." He said, "I'll
promise to be much better in the future." I said, "I don't
care how much better you promise to be in the future; just
make sure you are." And I did - did an investigation of his
case and - and found some points of interest and straightened
these things out and got the case wheeling, patted him on
the back. He has never had any ARC trouble with me since,
but before that time, he did have. Truth of the matter is,
I thought he was a complete schnook; I didn't like him. He
felt this - and then the fact that I said so - wouldn't say
so. I found out the only thing that pays along the line of
this sort of thing is to be totally honest.

Even if it comes to the point the fellow says, "I feel
you're just auditing me for the money." If you are, you
better say you are. That's right. You'll blow it. You'll
blow it out of you and him and out of the session.

Now, when we look over the rest of this, we see that we
have to have a couple of processes extra to clearing
processes. One of these is Start-C-S and the other is
Connectedness. We need these as stopgap or emergency or
assist or ally processes. Neither of these two processes
will clear anybody or ever cleared anybody. But they are
the hottest assist processes we know of from a standpoint
of getting a pc under control and getting him wheeling in
the session. That's Start-C-S.

The other one - the hottest process we know for bringing down
an obsessively high meter, for keying out our own blunders,
for wiping off a stuck point that we can't otherwise get
rid of - you could take Connectedness at the end of a session
where you still have the pc stuck like mad and by running
some Connectedness, get rid of the thing and bring the pc
to PT. See? It's - the best method of bringing him to PT is
not TR 10, but Connectedness. Connectedness will never fail
because it leaves nothing on automatic. TR 10 leaves
something on automatic.

"You notice that wall," you know? Well, is he noticing the
wall or is the wall noticing him or is the wall first or he
second? Well, don't leave that up in the air. "You get the
idea of making that wall connect with you" and you've got
it right on the button every time.

Commands of Start-C-S are: "I am going to tell you to
start. And when I tell you to start, you start the body in
that direction. Do you understand that?" "Good." "Start."
"Did you start the body?" "Thank you.

Now, when we run Stop - we don't run these in rotation, we
run mostly Starts and Stops and we run Change only when we
got Start or Stop somewhat flat. We would run Start and
then we would run Change and then we would run Stop, you
see, in just that rotation, but then Change again. Now, I'm
telling you straight; I don't care what this sheet says.

You run Start and then your individual activity, then,
concentrates on Start until he feels he got a good
certainty on starting the body. Then you run some Change.
You run the change version of this and when you've run the
change version of it, why, you get the thing wheeling
again. And you'll find that all you did with Change was
unsettle Start, so you can run some more Start, don't you
see? Then you can run Stop and Change, and Stop and Change,
and then Start and Change, and Start and Change, you see?
Vary these around. But Change fits in between the other
two, always. Improperly listed here.

"I'm going to tell you to get the body moving in that
direction. Somewhere along the line I'll tell you to stop.
Then you stop the body. Do you understand that?" "Good."
"Get the body moving." "Stop." "Did you stop the body?"
"Thank you.

And Change is: "Do you see that spot?" "Good. We will call
that spot A. Now you stand here. Okay" (Auditor indicates
another spot.) That is spot A he stands him on. "Now do you
see that other spot?" "Good. We'll call that spot B. All
right, now when I tell you to change the body's position,
YOU move it from spot A to spot B." That's incorrect,
please make a proper change on this.

"You change the body from spot A to spot B." "Good. Change
the body's position." "Did you change the body's position?"
And pc says he did. "Thank you." "Do you see that spot?"
and so forth. But that - that is given correctly in the
second line, "Change the body's position." I'm sure I don't
know why that typo crept in.

Connectedness is: "You get the idea of making that (object)
connect with you." If the pc isn't looking at the object:
"Look at that (desk)." "You get the idea of making that
(desk) connect with you." Always, "You look at that
(object)," and then "You get the idea of making that
connect with you." "Feel" can be substituted for "look" in
the case of a blind man.

Well now, that's as far as we've got on these particular
command levels and we will take this up some more. I've
gone over this often enough that if you make a mistake
early in the session, now, you're a genius.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


