Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 28/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 24 Nov 1999 22:28:48 -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 28/35 (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-28 (16A)  4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING - Q&A PERIOD

CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING - QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

A lecture given on 4 August 1958

[Based on clearsound only.]

All right. This is the question period of the sixteenth
lecture of the 20th ACC, August the 4th, 1958.

Now, you've had a lot of time to run Rocks. You haven't,
unfortunately, had too much experience here in Rock
hunting, just as itself, and therefore I'm going to ask you
to do something, and that is to turn me in a list of all
the Rocks you have found or are running on every case.
Every Rock that you know anything about, even if it's on
somebody else's case, or your own, you turn me off a
complete list of Rocks, huh? And then I can go over this
complete Rock - a list of found Rocks - and we can get a
little bit smoother common denominator on this thing, huh?

Audience: Mm-hm.

I want to tell you right away I ran into a freak case that
is a nonstick case - a case that doesn't stick but surges.
The case was here a little earlier so I didn't mention it.
It's a freak case. I'm sure I can get this needle to stick
sometime or another but I worked at it for three hours.
Unfortunately I processed this case before, and the case is
capable of blowing full computations that would have been a
talisman at one time or another, see? And as these things
blow off I'm blowing down to machinery with a case with no
reality on machinery! Now this is interesting. The case is
obviously operating on machinery, and there's no reality
there on production machinery. There's only reality on one
thing and that is: anything that stops you is no good.
Anything that stops you is no good.

Now, "stop" and "stopped" blew off as stops. I did get the
needle to halt on "stopped." The consumption machine, then,
is a machine simply that stops everything, being fought by
a production machine. No reality on the production machine,
which is earlier, but lots of reality on anything that
stops anything - and that is bad. Definition of something
that stops: bad.

The behavior of the needle, I must tell you about. I'm sure
I can stop this needle on such a question of a stop remover
or something like this, and a stop remover will get over
into some reality. But I must tell you that I haven't
stopped it; I hadn't asked the question of stop remover yet.

I've exhausted the case of practically everything that we
could think of, you know, practically everything we've run
into. Whenever I say "Stopped," the needle does a
half-a-dial surge and then slows its surge down. In other
words, the common surge and rise of the needle, you see, is
just about so much. Well, all you have to do is say
"Stopped," and it goes - get the idea? Just the statement,
"Stopped" causes the production machine to go into furious
activity; and trying to look at this case, because it's so
solidly in an unreal, totally delusory production machine,
is something like trying to look at somebody while he's got
a hose on your face. You're trying to see the nozzle to the
hose and all you get is water in the face, you see? And
there's that tremendous uprise, this terrific surge every
time you say, "Stop." "Stop" at first, mind you, slowed the
needle down and occasionally stopped it for a moment, you
see? But then stops blew off of it, just in case analysis,
you see? And finally, "Stopped" no longer stops the needle.
What we're doing is, just with scouting, coming in toward
the production machine.

Now, a machine that produces things of some kind or another
does not yet stop the needle! See? No reality - going through
tremendous delusion. Now, perhaps just an additional scout
would bring us down to the standard case but so far it has
not. And I do have this freak case now, that every time you
say the key word, you don't get a stuck needle, you get a
tremendous surge. Yes. I just wanted to mention this case
because this is the one case that so far is an exception to
all other rules.

Yes?

Male voice: What would happen if you said, "Start" to that
case, then?

Nothing happens. There's a total unreality of mental
machinery.

Another thing, this case was asked to run a mental machine
on another preclear, as an auditor, and just cut and ran.
Just went. Wouldn't audit it, monkeyed, continued to scout
and continued to fool around - needle just as stuck as though
it was jabbed into a Rock, you know? And auditor would not
run it, wouldn't have anything to do with it until
practically a whip was used. (This was on another case, not
myself.) It was fascinating. The case was just getting out
from under anything that was a production machine but was
not getting a needle reaction on a production machine and
kept saying didn't know anything about a production machine.

That suggestion, "Start" might work at this time, and I've
kept a very good list of everything that has been asked on
the case. And the case unfortunately is in sufficiently
good condition that it is blowing computations that would
ordinarily stick a needle; and all that happens is the
needle sticks and, boy, there it stuck, see? You say
something: "talisman" - on any kind of a talisman, you know,
like a heathen idol or a priestess or something of the
sort, you know - and that needle just comes up there and
sticks, see, but good! And you say, "Huhhhhhhh," you know?

And then you say, "How about this priestess?" Psheww -
two-dial blowdown - the liabilities of auditing a
Scientologist that's already in pretty good shape.

Okay.

Yes?

Male voice: Well now, wouldn't that case you just mentioned
be practically a perfect target for this, "Mock up a person
who would be pleased with your stupidity."

Oh, yes. Perfect target. You'd blow through the delusion.
You're right, and that's really what I would have done with
the case if I wasn't trying to find the case - trying to find
the case out, just on a routine scout. It was my amusement.
I spent three hours on it.

Yes?

Female voice: Ron, could you have a Rock which is a
consumer and then have a machine which is a producer
holding the Rock that is the consumer in place...

Yes.

Female voice: ... and then you blow the Rock that is the
consumer, but the machine that is the producer sort of
holding that pattern there, still remains.

Oh, yes.

Female voice:... for a while?

It would.

Female voice: Oh, okay.

It would.

Female voice: Yes, okay. I got it.

That's when your consumer goes blahh. That's when the
consumer goes up the spout and out the window, you see, and
you've got another wild needle. Now, the reason I mention
this freak case to you is that I've blown the consumer off
of the case, don't you see? It's "stopped," see, anything
that stops anything, you see? And that consumer's now gone
off the case and all we re getting is tremendous surges
just at the thought of anything stopping it. Only it isn't
totally gone.

Female voice: But now you'll easily blow the machine producer?

Well, I think with another hour or so of scout, we'll get a
machine into view because two hours deep in the scouting -
this is an awful long time for me to scout anything - as I
say, the case was making a session out of it. I'd tell the
case every half an hour, or something like that, "You know,
I'm not auditing you." It didn't matter. The case was right
in there in-session, blowing things left and right.

I noticed that at the end of about two hours the case was
starting to get a reality on machinery, and all of a
sudden... I'd described machinery to the case. The case
was just duhhh, you know. No help. Wouldn't assist anybody
to do anything, you know, just duhhh. At the end of about
two hours, case suddenly sat up and said, "You mean a
mental machine that produces something? Is that what you
mean? Or that does something?" And I said, "That's right."
And the case was getting an increasing reality on machinery
just as we did a scout.

Female voice: How about a machine that produces stoppers?
Would that be a machine that this person would understand?

Well, that's probably the first machine this person will
understand and that may get a stick. That's why I say a
stop remover would be the production machine. I'm going to
try that one and then I'm going to try a barrier production
machine and I'll get there with this case.

Yes, Miriam?

Female voice: Well, my Dianetics 1950 auditor's ear says
you've got something that says, "Got to keep going. Never
quit. Nothing stops me.

How do you mean, now?

Female voice: My 1950 Dianetics auditor's ear. That would
be the kind of thing I'd be hearing.

Yeah? Mm-hm. Those phrases, by the way, are simply lodged
on top of the basic postulate that created the machine,
which gave them their force.

Female voice: So this one would have to keep going and
couldn't stop.

That's right.

Female voice: You'd find that kind of thing.

Must not be stopped!

Female voice: That's old-fashioned 1950 demon circuits.

That's right-that is-it's a...

Female voice: So maybe that's what you're going to have to find.

That's probably-probably there. Undoubtedly. Yes.

But it's funny - funny, scouting in this fashion and actually
getting a needle stopped but thoroughly, and only keeping
it stopped for maybe sixty seconds, tells me that you could
scout with a considerable degree of gain on a case, you
know; that there is some therapeutic value to scouting.

We ran into one of the nastiest computations on this case,
you know, the most debased beingness. The person was
practically throwing up on the floor over the thought of
it, and the needle stayed stuck on this one for about two
minutes and then it all blew. The whole works blew.

Well, so what! So you didn't have to run Help on it.

By the way, this case had an analysis run on it in another
fashion and there was something this case couldn't do: the
case could not not-know anything. The case objects only to
one thing and that is survival and continuance of anything
and can't not-know anything and actually had to be kicked
around in a session for about an hour trying to get
not-know running, on getting the idea of - just the idea -
of not-knowing, let us say, this microphone, so that it would
seem to disappear. Just getting the idea - not getting the
microphone to disappear - but just getting the idea of having
any object disappear so you could see through it.

And I put the case through a drill and I said, "Now, look
at it. Now close your eyes," and I'd remove the object and
I'd say, "Now look in that direction. Do you see the
object?" Case would say, "No." I'd put the thing back up
here - this was just research auditing, see - put the thing
up here and say, "All right. Now open your eyes and look at
the object. Now, can you get the idea of the object ceasing
to be there?" And the case would say, "No."

Male voice: No, no, no.

Oh, yes. Oh, yes. This case is an obsessive survival
case - just absolutely obsessive to the point where there's
no slightest thing anyplace that is not going to survive
right where it is, just as it is surviving at this instant.
All things must! And the case at the same time answers all
auditing questions, "Now, invent a bad situation," you
know? "Well, somebody coming in and saying to me every
day - and never fail, every day - coming in and saying to
me... And the next day coming in and saying to me something..."
And a case doing any kind of a repetitive duplication in
other words, but the case would never explain this, see?
All these answers of something bad is something happening
again. Repetitive. Repetitive.

In other words the case is saying on one side, "Everything
must survive." And on the other side of it, is saying, "The
most horrible thing in the world is for something to
survive."

Audience. Wow! Oh!

Get this? And the reaction of this case on the needle was
finally stopped and then we've got stops out of the road
and now we're getting nothing but this fire hose surge. Get
the idea? Okay. I'll get this one tamed down, but there's a
three-hour scout. Some of you who feel bad sometime that
you haven't located a Rock in three hours can remember this
one.

Any other question?

Yes?

Male voice: Ron, I'd be interested in knowing if this "Mock
up a person who would be pleased with your condition" could
be used in a group or would it be recommended?

I've never tried it. It's pretty hard to control a group into
mock-ups. Takes an awful lot of good auditing to do that.
You'd have to groove the whole group down into an auditor's
control over several sessions before you'd dare tackle it.

Male voice: It would have to be very expertly done.

Yes. Your group auditing - you couldn't take a group that
was being attended by new people all the time. That's why,
by the way, when you're operating in an area, you should
not run a casual group as the group which you group process.
You actually should go about it with a different procedure
entirely. It's very successful in London.

Run a PE and anybody can walk into the PE or walk out of
it, except you try to enroll them for a week, you see? And
the excellence of your PE is determined by how many people
are there Friday compared to how many people were there
Monday night. And if you find that number dwindling too
fast, I can tell you there's something wrong with your PE
because all we have to do is change the PE Instructor and
we can alter the situation.

Now, out of this group and from this group we gradually
pick up candidates for a group intensive, like a weekend
intensive. And what they do over in London is run a weekend
intensive. And this weekend intensive is quite interesting
in that it starts out at exact hours and goes through to
exact hours, you see, and it's given over a weekend, and we
run that group over the weekend. Now, you can run a group
intensive over two or three weekends if you want to.

Now, it's possible to take a group, then, start them all at
once, groove them down, get them under control, and then
you can run practically anything. The best producing group
auditing sessions, however, are in that old PAB - I think
it's PAB 114, isn't it, or some such PAB - the Tone 40 Group
Intensive. And I've gotten several - I have many, many
profiles on this now and they are better by far than random
processes.

And we even ran a test on it and had two or three group
intensives run, using old-time Group Auditor's Handbook
processes and so forth, and got before and after processes.
Ran them quite well, you know, thinkingness processes and
that sort of thing. And they didn't compare in results to
that PAB 114 set of processes - Tone 40.

But this one, of course, could definitely be attempted but
only on some group that was all of a piece and was under
the auditor's control. Okay?

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet.

Any other questions here? Yes?

Female voice: In looking at the pc and trying to figure out
what to run on him, what Rock, some of these things that
we're running, isn't that service facsimile?

No. The service facsimile is generally the glib explanation
of the Rock and it is part of it, but it is that part of it
which is used on the surface. And you can't necessarily
diagnose a Rock from a look of the service facsimile, but
the service facsimile will come off while you're running a
Rock, quite unexpectedly. That's about all I know about it.
Now I probably haven't answered your question. Ask it again.

Female voice: Well, I'm thinking that if we run something
that has to do with the service facsimile first, then it
would expose the Rock to some degree?

That is a good thought. It has not to this time been done
because.. . We have one case, the service facsimile of which
has been tackled from every known angle, and carefully has
been kept off of the Rock for a great many sessions, and the
case has gotten nowhere. So at a whole series of one, I would
say that the tackling - this indicates that the tackling of
the service facsimile as itself, in lieu of the Rock, is
unsuccessful - at least has been in this case.

Now that the Rock has been isolated and tackled with this
case, and so on, the case is now making progress for the
first time, service facsimile ignored. We've had an awfully
hard time keeping HGC auditors off of some people's service
facsimiles and getting them onto a Rock, because service
facsimiles are so logical, they're so reasonable, and they
are so obviously the thing that is wrong. And then the Rock
turns out to be something that the devil himself couldn't
have computed. You know, it obviously led into the service
facsimile but you - all you needed - a six-foot rearview
mirror to see how it did. Yeah, it's very devious.

Female voice: But when we are finding something with which
that pc could reach or withdraw...

Mm-hm.

Female voice: ... that is the service facsimile.

Yes. That is so correct and you want the underpinning of
it. And the pc, however, will give you failed reaches and
failed withdraws if you keep at him long enough.

By the way, do you recognize that in scouting there is a
repetitive command that you use that is quite therapeutic?
Is: "With what could you reach people?" Do you know that?
But notice it's being run subjectively and it tends to
as-is the standard reach pattern of the pc. It's a sort of
a repetitive as-ising process and, if run for a while, runs
him out of and causes him to as-is his standard mechanisms,
which are the service facsimile.

Now that he exhausts the service facsimile responses, why,
you'll run into the Rock much more easily and you'll bypass
a service facsimile, so the process of scouting does
account for what you're talking about there, looking it
over roughly.

I'm quite interested in questions which lead into the Rock
but none of them are more fruitful just than the auditor's
imagination. He just sizes it up and pays his money and
takes his chance and see if the needle sticks. That answer
your question?

Female voice: Well, not quite, because I thought that's what
we were doing with - now like...

You thought you were...

Female voice: ... the attention machine or a heat machine
and it has to do with the service facsimile, and we're
running it.

Well, then I don't - I don't... Ask your question again.

Female voice: Ways of reaching...

Hm?

Female voice: Ways of reaching or withdrawing from people.
We're running some of those...

Mm-hm.

Female voice: It seems to me they have to do with the
service facsimile.

I just said they do have. But to take the service facsimile...

Female voice: Are you saying we shouldn't?

..as it exhibits ...

I see. You don't know enough about the service facsimile.
It's an exhibition that the person makes in life and he
exhibits this as a methodology. He exhibits it all the
time, except just how it reaches people is quite weird
because it usually doesn't.

Now, the thing that produces the service facsimile is what
we are running. This not only produces a service facsimile
but the remainder of aberration.

Now, to take the service facsimile, which is the obvious
visible manifestation of a case's attempts to reach things,
and to run back to the Rock, is often a horrible failure.
It can be successful. But your service facsimile will be
run if you run the Rock.

Now, let's take it from a diagnostic standpoint. The
service facsimile is as often as not, of no use to you at
all in diagnosis. But in running the Rock you'll run back
into the service facsimile. Now, you are running the
service facsimile when you are running the Rock, but you
are not just running the service facsimile, fortunately.

Service facsimile is just the last decayed bits that are
still exhibited of the Rock. See? That's just the last
bric-a-brac and what this bric-a-brac adds up to is
something like taking a half a dozen Chinese puzzles and
kicking them all together, then selecting out at random
half a dozen pieces and trying to make something out of it.
It's a mess. Got it now?

Female voice: Thanks.

All right.

Yes, Bob?

Male voice: Ron, in running my particular case and trying
to put it on all eight dynamics, I have a horrible time
when I get to the eighth dynamic. I cannot conceive of it
without flipping back to the first. So I'm wondering what
is the eighth dynamic?

Yeah, well that's - I've told you many times that when you
get the first clean and clear, you can certainly see the
eighth. You get the rest of them clean and clear, you can
see the eighth and all of the explanation in the world
does not enter in as any substitute for it. In other words,
that's an unexplainable phenomenon. That's another isness
for which we don't have adequate language.

Male voice: Do you mean that we can't see it as a
Scientologist?

It's pretty hard to do. It's pretty - pretty doggone hard to
do. I could go as far as to give you some kind of a jackleg
trumped-up explanation of the thing and generally don't
deal in such things. They're just suppositions as far as
I'm concerned.

See, the whole thing hinges on the fact of: are we all one
or are we individuals? Now, to do that with any subjective
reality is the only way you can do that; you can't take it
as an intellectual dose. This is one of the things that a
person solves for himself.

The Buddhists have tried to hand it out as an intellectual
dose and wherever Buddhism has failed, it's because that
dose has failed, see? Now, the next thing that we run into
with regard to a computation between the two is rivalry -
jealousy. The individual that conceived of another individual
being God in a particular universe, he became very jealous
of the other individual, you see? And we get a lock on the
God computation. We normally run into the lock of jealousy,
and you can possibly even remember in this lifetime when
you heard about God creating everything and you said,
"Well, I - I - doesn't seem very real to me. I - I had
a hand in this," you said, even if you were a little kid.

Audience: Yes.

And so there's that jealousy computation. Then we run into
something else. What universe are we talking about? If
you're talking about the thetan's own universe, of course
he's always been God in that, but is the thetan's own
universe the MEST universe, you see? And if this is the
case, why, all right and if it isn't the case, all wrong,
see? Now, a fellow has to become subjectively reconciled to
the idea that this is or is not his universe. So that's
another question that has to be answered and that is
answered with its greatest reality, not as a string of
words, but as a fellow taking a look at it, see? Now, a
Scientologist can know vividly what he is trying to answer,
and that is a long way along the line. But for somebody to
come along and announce an answer to this particular little
conundrum, overriding anybody else's reality on the
situation and the back reverses and so forth.

You'll find out there's only one thing I get criticized
for. Once in a while I get criticized because I won't let
people help me while I'm demanding that they help me.
That's very funny. I get a letter every once in a while,
"You won't let me help and that makes me very mad at you,"
and so forth, "because you won't let me help." And you look
back in the files - you've actually asked the guy to do
something, you know, and this wasn't evidently real as help.

So you get this other one. Periodically, I'd say once every
six months, I receive a resounding upbraiding of magnitude
on the subject of refusing to let people believe in their
own gods - tampering with other people's gods and that sort
of thing - running down Yahweh and so forth. The people that
write these things - they don't know what god they're talking
about. They don't know anything about it at all. Is it
Vishnu they're talking about? Is it Yahweh? Is it Christian
church Jehovah or the three gods of the Catholic church, or
what is it? What are they talking about? They just say,
"God!" Well, this is wholly uninformative and we're off to
the races at once.

Now, I think that almost any Christian will agree with you
when you say, "Christian practice has left something
wanting in an optimum picture - the practice of Christianity
as it has been practiced." That's a good thing or a bad
thing in the final aggregate - simply depends on this thing
that every cure eventually becomes a disease.

Along about the fourteen hundred and ninety, something like
that, about the time that people came over to discover
America for Spain (its already having been discovered
several times - like Lindbergh, the sixty-fourth man to
fly the Atlantic but now he's the first man that flew the
Atlantic, you know?), why, Ferdinand pulled into Spain, as
a method of taxation, because he was always broke and he
was pretty chichi anyhow - he was a very little man and
Isabella was quite a girl, from the history books - and
Ferdinand, to get going on his always depleted purse,
instituted the Inquisition.

And a very sincere fellow named Torquemada was appointed by
him - over Isabella's dead body, practically - to become
the total head of the Inquisition of the Catholic church in
Spain. And Torquemada took his job very much to heart!
Nobody doubts his sincerity or his service facsimile.

Male voice: Oh, boy.

But here this fellow Torquemada was in actuality only
serving Ferdinand's exchequer, because everybody who was
found to be an heretic, of course, had to surrender all of
his lands and goods to the Crown - first to the church and
then to the Crown - and the Crown really got them, but the
church got a large whack out of them before the Crown did.
And so anybody who was rich could be communized - I mean
excommunicated.

Very, very little difference between basic Christianity and
basic communism, by the way. That's why they don't fight.
You wonder why the churches don't clean up on communism.
They have no interest in cleaning up on communism. They
themselves have been communistic too long. And you don't
even find them getting angry, really - which they should.

But here you had an argument there which put the final
stain on Christianity. In England all you've got to do is
talk about churches and so forth - almost anybody in any
shop or the street and they spit! You know, they'd say,
"Dah - church," you know? But, you see, it became the
disease. But remember it was a tremendous cure for about
fifteen hundred years. It was a big cure. Cured the world
of the Roman Empire. That was its basic purpose. It cured
the world of independent gods and spirits. Practically
nobody here that didn't get hit in the head somewhere along
the track - as you'll find out in running it - by the
ingress of Christianity into your area.

People got too many engrams on the subject, that's all; and
you start explaining religion and you've had it. Religion
is a subjective affair. About the only thing you can do is
point out the errors of past religions, and you can point
out some of them and people feel a little easier about it
occasionally. They say, "Yeah, well, that's true." But as
far as telling the man exactly how he got at cross-purposes
with what he once considered God, is a highly individual
activity. You know, they got at odds in various ways.

Yes?

Male voice: I'd like to hear your explanation of how you
started on all this in the first place.

Started on what?

Male voice: Scientology. Dianetics. How you sort of
independent - became independent again now, or - how did
all this really come about?

 Oh! Nothing-very, very simple.

Male voice: I mean, maybe a lot of people have heard it but
I haven't heard it.

I just died about three times in this lifetime and got used
to being outside. Really, that's factual, and because I was
already moved out of the groove, don't you see, in
teachings. My family, many members of my family that I was
raised with were devout Christians, and my grandfather was
a devout atheist. And there were conflicts involved in the
subject, and like a kid normally will, where there's an
area of argument, he just moves out of it and he says,
"Well, I don't know anything about it," you know? And I got
over to Asia and India and I found out there were a
terrific number of things that were - evidently people knew,
and then I found out to my horror that they didn't know
what they knew about! I eventually realized that - that they
didn't know what they knew about. And they didn't know how
they were doing, what they were doing, and in the midst of
all of this knowledge, I found the direst of poverty and a
totally caved-in civilization. So that knowledge couldn't
have been any good for anybody but it still was a route,
you know? They didn't have it.

And I came over and took science over here at GW down at
22nd and G Street. After I'd been there for a little while,
I found out they sure didn't have much of a route in
science - they were gibbering! Yeah. They didn't explain
very much of anything.

I got so I could pass a 100 percent examination on physics
any day - I just - snap of the fingers, run it all off just
like a machine, you know? Nothing to it. But didn't get us
anywhere. Didn't explain matter. Didn't explain the
universe - why it was here.

Used to listen to biologists gibbering around about how we
were all mud, and so forth, and I already knew that they
were quoting a heathen religion over in India. And I tried
to tell them this and they'd say, "Oh! No, no, no. This is
the latest biological founding," and so forth. Bah! And
they were dramatizing Adam and the rib and so forth and so
I figured these guys were kind of dead-ended. And then, I
got interested in the arts and I said, "Well, the devil
with all of it." I got interested in the arts and was
fooling around in the arts and all of a sudden wondered why
all poetry in all languages sounded like poetry! And
decided there must be some missing branch of aesthetics
called rhythm or something. And I couldn't - found out
nobody had adequately described the stuff, so I set up
some scientific apparatus to test some Japanese poetry.

And then I wondered why various syllables - why should
various syllables mean sadness? I eventually got the
picture of sad syllables, you see? I spoke two or three
languages without too much difficulty, you know, heathen
languages, and so forth. And I'd take poems from these
languages and I'd read them and I'd get a picture on a
little tape on a Koenig photometer. And I'd look at this
and they looked the same, but these syllables were a common
denominator of sadness, you see, or a common denominator of
joy. And you'd get a certain wave picture that's joy, and a
certain wave picture that's sadness, you know? And yet,
each race seemed to agree on this, and I'd found the first
thing that man could agree on, of being sad and being happy
and that that had something to do with certain syllables.

And boy! This was quite a revelation to me, but I said,
"Well, if people know all about this..." and I went over to
the psychology department. You wonder why I'm bitter about
psychology. And I found a fellow over there named Dr. Fred
Moss and he was a fine guy. He'd been called in by
President Hoover many times for consultations. He was one
of the better psychologists in the country - he wrote a book
or two on the subject - and not a bad old joe himself at all.

But I found out they couldn't answer a single question I
asked them about behavior or the mind. And I found out
psychology was a study of a thing called a brain and it had
no relationship to the thing called a mind. And the more I
stressed this fact and the more I asked questions
concerning it, the more I found that the mind was a totally
neglected subject in modern times.

So I busted out James and an encyclopedia and Locke and
Hume and Descartes and all the rest of it and, boy, I read
those guys down to the bone - and they all disagreed to some
degree or another.

But the odd part of it is that the older editions of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica - I realize now at this line - does
carry a list of terms that we use right now in Scientology.
It's by accident, see? Our concentration on these terms and
subjects was once concentrated on back in the sixteenth,
seventeenth and eighteenth century, see? Man was thinking
fairly straight along this line and then he went nuts, went
crazy, you see? And I found these fellows were simply being
pompous. And you only find me getting real cross about one
thing. This is a common denominator of what I get cross
about, I get real mad about. It's not any individual
penchant, I don't think, because I've looked for it in
vain. But when something is pretending to be something else
than it is, when it is knowingly pretending and when it is
knowingly a fraud, I cannot restrain my teeth from meeting.
That one drives me nuts, see? Why? Here are a bunch of
people who want to know - civilization which is dying for
the lack of a knowledge - and here and there in the society
we find some men who know positively that they don't know
and who are saying to everybody else that they know.

Now, these men are the principal third dynamic engrams; and
those are the engrams of the third dynamic. Here we have
Dull Foster, see? Dull Foster himself knows and states to
his friends that he knows nothing about international
relations and the only reason he wants to be secretary of
state was because his grandfather's great-grandfather was.
He knows that he has no business opening his fat mouth! And
here he's got this country so involved it doesn't know
whether it's coming or going. The man is not honest, and
when a man is knowingly dishonest I like to break out my
quiver of arrows, even if they are only verbal.

Now, as far as knowledge of the subject concerned, I
proceeded from the fact the psychology department didn't
know what I was talking about. I said "Man, whatever his
race, apparently has something in common emotionally. Now,
what is emotion?" Duhh. Anytime we talked about something
besides a part of the brain they weren't with us.

Well, the Christian Scientist had already talked about
mind. You look in Christian Science and, although there's
some pretty wild ones in there, they must have been on the
groove somehow or another; they at least admitted there is
something called "mind." And to find oneself existing in a
society, with the knowledge that there was a hole in that
society, needed for the enhancement of its culture, which
wasn't filled, plugged or cared for, and so on, was
challenge enough. That was challenge enough and I fooled
along with that for some time, just monkeying around,
trying to find a few common denominators. I applied
mathematics and what I knew of the physical sciences and
what I knew of spiritualism, hypnotism and the rest of it.
I was not without some background on the subject. But here
you had a broad span, and I wasn't dedicated to any of
these any more than I am dedicated to a symbol today. It's
just the truth and what is it all about; that's the
dedication.

And I found that there was some advance - one could make
an advance along these lines and one could understand more
about it and I was quite pleased to go ahead with it. And
then one day I kicked the bucket and that upset everything.
And I found myself about a hundred and fifty yards outside
the head, with the heart stopped, and I said, "Wait a
minute! What am I doing here?" You know? "What's this all
about?" You know? I kind of dimly remember that this was
the way it was supposed to be anyhow, and then it was kind
of, "What was I doing in there?" See? And found out vaguely
that I had a full command of my faculties. And people that
have been exteriorized by auditors very often can't see the
environment or see a false environment. I never had that
difficulty - the environment that was there. The cars were
cars, the body was the body, the operating table was the
operating table and all the rest of it, see? I saw the body
was going to kick the bucket and suddenly realized that was
going to do me out of things. Now, here I'd been working
for years trying to build a name and I'd been - had a few
MEST possessions and I had things wheeling. And I just
reached over and grabbed the body by the head and smacked
it back to life again, see? Bang! And it gave me pause for
thought.

Oddly enough, I reverted from a spiritual explanation and
explained everything electronically, or tried to. But I was
merely interested in what was making the body function
because I was trying to hook it up again.

Well, a couple of times in the war - various things - 1938
I wrote the first book on this subject: common denominator
of existence is survival, and that is for true. It still
is. We're still solving things on the basis of survive: the
first command. It took - '38 to '58 - it took nineteenth
years, that is, 1957 I found "help." It took nineteen years
to find a word that exactly ran and described survival so
that it would run on cases, and it was the via that was the
acceptable via that took apart the conglomeration of this
and that, see? But during the war, why, I already knew
enough about my subject. I had run into people who were
interested in the mind, Freudian analysis, other things,
when I was a kid. I used to be able to take Freudian
analysis and things like that and patch up guys who were
going off their rockers.

Last year of the war I spent getting patched up in a naval
hospital. And I used to drift over and bother the
psychiatrists and I didn't belong in that ward, and so they
got upset with me. And I found out I could do things with
troops that were in Jap camps and so forth, nobody else
could do.

And thought of myself as - the first time as somebody who
actually had some business in the field of practice as well
as research. First time - because it didn't matter how many
hours they saw psychiatrists or psychoanalysts, you see,
they didn't get well. And I could patch them up sometimes
fairly adequately.

And then, 1947, I received all of my back pay from the war
in one lump sum and although I was going along pretty good
as a writer, I had to write the whole thing into solvency,
which left very little time for research. I set up a
practice in Hollywood with this lump sum and all of a
sudden had a singing, humming practice. Every once in a
while somebody writes me from 1947. I didn't charge people
anything unless it was part of their case that I had to,
and started making Clears.

I heard from one of those Clears the other day, by the way.
A girl wrote me - and she had no word for anything, you
know - thanking me for all the confidence I had given her,
and she'd been very successful since. These people
evidently were still pretty stable up the line.

And then by 1950, wrote a book on the subject but I,
meantime, had tried to teach some people how to do it; and
the book was devoted to teaching them how to do it. It came
close in some places but it didn't give, oddly enough, the
first clearing method. I myself didn't understand it and I
carried on since that time merely developing a surer lineup.

And what drove me from 1947 on was this one fact: I
realized that a subject of the mind in the world had no
slightest business existing unless it cured itself; and
that acted as a terrific catalyst. You could release things
into the world, then, which were unsolvable and which
merely became new evils, and anybody who has done that in
the field of the mind, you see, has gummed the race up
something fierce.

So, not wanting to gum the race up just one more time -
as one more guy gumming the race up - I have been surging
forward towards a subject which also solved itself. And you
have processes today, old processes, which run out
auditors, pcs, run me out, run all the books out, you know?
And I wouldn't be proceeding with any aplomb unless - unless
that were the case, you know? We don't want a new cult - as
the newspapers insist on calling us - which is going forward,
unable to cure itself, which in another century would
become one of the greatest ills the race has, like
Christianity did.

Christianity to me is the great example of this. For a
while it was terribly successful and then it just caved in
on itself and it became - oh, whole nations have been
slaughtered in the name of peace and Christ, for heaven's
sakes. And I never wanted to get into this category, that's
for sure. That's what's been keeping us going.

But a bomb landed in front of me one time and blew me
appetite over tin cup, and so forth, and I found myself out
of my head again, only I was used to it by this time - pick
the mock-up up and keep it going - pretty weird, pretty
weird.

Any one of you might have started on the same route - any
one of you. It's just a cross-up of training more than
anything else, and a stick-to-ivity on the subject, which
was actually taught to me in several fields. But nothing
very odd about it except that it...

The oddest thing about it to me is why man never made a
breakthrough on this! That I have never been able to get
through my head, you know? And I read these wise men, these
men with facilities of language and thought and so forth
which I never on earth possessed, and these guys were
walking around in circles? Schopenhauer, for instance. This
man's ability to write and to think, and so forth, and he
got right on down to the death engram - Will and the Idea -
he got right on down. And then he simply dramatized: he
didn't do anything more than dramatize.

And that man has been staggered by this for some time has
made me suspicious! Maybe it wasn't supposed to be solved,
you know? And I had that suspicion with me right up till
1950 and I then began to realize that that was not the
case! That it couldn't be solved - that was factual from
the standard reference points he uses. That it was not
meant to be solved was a dramatization.

One of the biggest dramatizations you'll find in a case is
the case mustn't know anything about its own case. As a
matter of fact, that dramatization, I'll confess to you,
carries on to this moment in Scientology - that you mustn't
know much about your own case; you must audit somebody else
and understand his case.

Now, with this ACC we have made a breakthrough in that, all
by itself, and I can conceive the possibility now of a man
being able to confront his own bank well enough to solve
his own case. I can confront this. Self-auditing, as long
as you stay on "Mock up somebody who would like your own
condition," something like that (don't go off into a
figure-figure and so on) is productive of results. I've
been keeping two cases on self-audit and taking tests on
them, and they are gaining - they are gaining about - with
half the speed they would have gotten from an auditor, see?
But of course they do have an auditor sort of on an oblique
angle. But this we're solving; we're getting it even on
down past the universal "There must be two," don't you see?
And that's passing to some degree.

But that doesn't invalidate your training because as I look
at the people who are around in this world at this time and
imagine them being able to confront their own minds, when
they don't even know such a thing exists, there s lots of
room for you.

Well, that's the long and arduous story of it, stripped of
all of its romantic elements.

Okay.

Yes?

Male voice: I've heard a lot of fabulous stories about the
book "Excalibur." Could you tell us a little about that?

It still - it still exists. I got a carbon copy of it. The
original's been stolen.

Male voice: Will you ever put it in print, Ron?

The original... No. The original was stolen by the Russians
a long time ago. They offered me a hundred thousand dollars
to go to Russia and work exclusively in Russia - all
laboratory facilities - and actually offered me any facility
and pay and equipment that Pavlov had ever had and they
almost had me on the boat, you know? That was back with
Amtorg [Amerikanskaya Torgovlya - A Russian - American
trading company]. And a few years later, why, my apartment
was raided, doors smashed in and so forth, and the only
thing missing in the whole place - papers were all thrown
about and so forth - and the only thing missing (there were
very many valuables there) and the only thing missing was
the original copy of the book "Excalibur." Still gone. I do
have a carbon of it, however. I didn't know I had the
carbon. The carbon is the first writing. The book that was
stolen had been rewritten somewhat. That answer it?

Male voice: Well, I was wondering if it would be something
that you might ever put in print or.

Highly doubtful.

Male voice: Was it dangerous to read, I mean, the subject.

Very, very.

Male voice: How about Scientology?

Terrifically introverting.

No. Scientology offers some hope. "Excalibur" simply was
nothing on worlds, Earth - without any understanding at all
on the subject of why. Or it simply said exactly what he
was looking at and it evidently produced the mechanism,
making him confront immediately and intimately all of the
brain mechanisms. And, "Excalibur" is actually devoted to
brain mechanisms as well as many of the principles which
led to the research line. But it described brain
mechanisms, and so forth, and guys read those things and
they actually were sitting there just looking at them and
they go up the spout.

Now, in Scientology you ask a man to confront why, you ask
him to confront thinkingness, you ask him to confront
reason and supposition. You don't give him the hard
rock-bound object, you know? And he gets along all right.
You can write too brutally on the subject evidently.

Scientology - I've never known anybody to do anything with
Dianetics and Scientology or any book thereof, but after
reading in one, to feel better, even though they were
sometimes worried, or something of the sort. And I have had
instances of people just reading the first article and
stepping out of a hospital bed, and so forth.

So this is not true of "Excalibur" and "Excalibur" comes
under the heading of a dangerous weapon.

Male voice: Would it still be dangerous for a Scientologist
to read it?

Oh no, no. Matter of fact from that aspect I wouldn't
publish it for another reason and that is that a modern
Scientologist would laugh at it. It's the only book, too,
by the way, that contains any nomenclature straight off my
case. Many of the descriptive words in it are straight out
of my own engrams. I'd had no auditing at the time; I'd had
no broad look at the track, or anything of the sort; and I
just picked up the handiest stuck phrase on the bank. Right.

Okay. Well, now, are you doing at all well, do you think?

Audience: Yes. Yes.

Is there any hope at all?

Audience: Yes. There is some.

Is there anybody who has no hope at all? Now, you'd be
afraid to raise your hand in this company, so go ahead and
raise it if you have no hope at all - you just don't think
it's anywhere from nothing. All right.

Okay.

There's a high probability in these cases that a look at
them will discover them running an associated Rock of some
sort. And I've already seen this mechanism of something
associated with the Rock being run with great avidness, and
so forth, and it simply runs up and down a bit and then it
sort of knocks off. Well, there was a fault in the analysis
of the case to some degree, which is of course very easy to
make. Yes?

Male voice: I wanted to ask a question about that because
you mentioned this in the lecture, that after you'd run the
thing a while maybe the actual Rock, which was something
pretty close.

Uh-huh.

Male voice:... will show up.

Yeah.

Male voice: Now, this seems to have been the case here. You
know, you assigned a space jockey...

Mm-hm.

Male voice: ... only this sort of - well, it ran and things
happened and then it flattened out. And so Saturday I got
a - I got a little bit better look at this and decided it
wasn't the jockey itself it was the ship. And this stuck,
incidentally. We were just.

Yeah?

Male voice:... running around.

Yeah.

Male voice: Now, what would you do in a case like that?
Would you discontinue running the command and let the...

Jockey didn't stick anymore and ship did? You've got to
shift - that's all there is to that. We'll have to go into
this a little bit further...

Remember something. We are talking about a chain which
begins with basic-basic, goes up through engrams,
secondaries and lock chains. It's a wholly totally
identified mess - you understand - and trying to find one's
way through this requires you to know certain laws
concerning Dianetics and that was: When it doesn't erase
you went earlier. Remember that? Hm?

Male voice: Right.

You can't do anything else with the Rock than this and
you're more or less being held on this, as auditors, to
stick to it, which is a little bit of a criticism of you.
People are afraid you'll bolt, you know, and use the
look-around as just a method of bolting. So once you have
audited out and have stuck to a Rock for a while, which had
as a subsidiary Rock...

I gave you an example of it this morning. You find arm. Arm
sticks. Doesn't seem to have any sense. It doesn't select
out one way or the other. Next thing you know we're really
talking about an arm - meaning a weapon. Now, that is the arm
that's stuck, and a plain arm just goes through hell while
that is being broken out and then continues to have
somatics on it as the rest of it is run. But the arm itself
would probably not resolve if it was a human arm that we
were auditing. You got the idea? Now, you just picked the
wrong chain, that's all. The right chain was a gun! And yet
at first it'll be armor, swords, spears, you know? All
kinds of things will stick equally with this. As it
differentiates, somewhere there's a main chain. Somewhere
there's a main chain; you'll find the other chains will
fall off of it.

Now, there's something I said I'd give you in the lecture
and I didn't give you, and that's how to prove one up. Is
you merely add - I've mentioned it many times - that you add
to it and subtract from it. Well, now, when some synonym for
which you are running adds to it, that isn't it. The thing
itself will go on sticking, but other things associated
with it will add to it and subtract from it, you see? So if
something starts to become subtractive and if something
starts to become additive, and some close synonym to this
is the better one, why, that's the one that should be run.

But there's another error. You can come off of the main
Rock and start running some associated Rock which doesn't
stick as well and just gum the case up gorgeously. You get
both of them? Now, one of the rules is that all those
things which are late have less validity than those things
that are early; and you find yourself running anything
late, like the Catholic church for the love of Pete, let's
go south! See? Otherwise it'll hang up. Got it? You find
yourself running items which all of a sudden run into
machines. I'll give you a clue. Run the machine out and
then come back and find out about the item. You got the
idea?

Female voice: Yeah.

So part of your running should consist of occasional
testing, occasional scouting and occasional lookovers to
redefine this thing and to find that part of it that sticks
best, and then you run that segment of it. You understand?
As you run it you're getting rid of generalizations and
associated things. You got it? So theoretically you can
move over center to one that just sticks with deadly glue.
And that was what you should have been running all the
time, but the devil himself couldn't have piloted his way
into it. You got it? Now you can move over as long as it's
earlier and sticks better.

Yes?

Male voice: How about going from factories to consumers and
vice versa?

Yep.

Male voice: That's legit too?

Yes. That's all a part of it. You shift over from a
consumer to a producer, from a producer to a consumer, you
can shift back and forth. The rule is simply: what sticks
best now. You understand?

Male voice: Right.

It's what sticks best now.

Male voice: You're going to have to have something with a
free needle, though, to make that check. Right?

No. Not necessarily. Your needle is going to get wobbly on
one part of it. Just do another little scout on it, see,
remembering vividly what you were running, because you might
not find anything else and then you'd just better come back
to what you were running. You get the idea?

[End of lecture.]


