Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 33/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 25 Nov 1999 02:34:09 -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 33/35 (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-33 (20)   8 Aug 58 AUDITOR INTEREST

AUDITOR INTEREST

A lecture given on 8 August 1958

[Based on the clearsound version only.]

Hiya.

Somebody wants some information here on adjusting anchor
points in the body. You got a long way to go before you get
smooth enough to do that.

Adjusting body anchor points is a very interesting
exercise, but you have to be a pretty smooth auditor in
order to do it. Reality of pc has to be very high; doesn't
do much good unless you do - unless it is.

This is the twentieth lecture of the 20th ACC, August 8,
1958, and today we are going to take up a summary which
simply adds up to a description by me of a session.

Summary of what you do, how you do it, what you can do. And
this is so far above what you can do right now that you're
going to get lost right away. So stand by to get lost.

Tell you right at the beginning, you're right now at a
point of auditing where you can learn something. And don't
kid yourself, you're no further along than that - any of you.

Given the ability to do all of the TRs perfectly, given the
ability to do it - do them hour after hour, day after day,
with complete perfection - you can relax. That's interesting;
you can relax.

And the TRs form, simply, the woof and the warp, the solid
foundation from which you audit. You no longer confront
with or audit with the TRs. But anybody who knew his
business, anybody who was an excellent auditor could sit
there and look at you and recognize that every TR was
present and functioning. But somebody who merely knew the
TRs, who had just read them, would be unable to discern the
presence of any of them.

Now, that is a shattering blow after you've gone ahead and
learned all of this and you're doing just fine. No, it's
not at all. You've simply got one small toe on the bottom
rung of the ladder of being able to play this piano called
auditing.

The reason why you were grilled and grooved and hammered
and pounded so hard into the TRs is they get an auditor
over the idea of omitting or flinching from some portion of
auditing and substituting for it yak and ineffectiveness.
You understand that? Just ...

Going on and on and on and on and on about this, about
that, and following down this line and that line and
floundering around and going over the hills and far away,
and getting lost in the green woods, and getting the
preclear out over someplace else and finally winding up by
straightening up his jewel collection instead of his case,
is the normal result of ducking out with a TR.

But if you watched me audit and if you watched a very small
handful of very fine auditors audit, you would swear to
Pete that was what was happening. You would swear to Pete
that was what was happening, that we had just ducked out on
the case and we were over the hills and gone. And it had
nothing to do with anything that was going on.

A process, some Straightwire, Two-way Comm, a process,
another process, Two-way Comm, Straightwire, a scout;
additional process that you never heard of before and
neither did the auditor until that minute, flatten it out,
Two-way Comm, a scout, a little more Straightwire, then a
process, and then a process and a process and a process
to - ah, Straightwire. Ah! Starting a session. Now we start
a session - start a session for two and a half hours with
Two-way Comm, a scout, Straightwire, Help, two-way bracket,
scout, Help, two-way bracket, Two-way Comm, Straightwire,
Two-way Comm, a scout, pinning another Rock chain and here
we go again.

Now I see from the startled and fixed looks upon your faces
that you don't think this is the way it is.

But I'll tell you something; I'll tell you something. Not
one auditor, including me, can audit until he can do a
totally technically perfect repetitive session without a
single flinch anyplace along the line, without a single
flub any way along the line, and only after that can he relax.

If a fellow can do ten, twenty hours, let us say, of the
CCHs on Tone 40 auditing, or if he can do technically
perfect, repetitive, formal auditing, can he then afford to
relax. Because he knows himself then, that he is not
ducking out on anything. He's just going through that case
like a sawmill.

And I told you a joke yesterday, and none of you got it.
And I will tell you the joke again now.

Given a session in progress, the Rock located and isolated,
I could clear you in fifteen minutes. That's a joke -
nobody's laughing. Oh, somebody - dawned on them - oh! Pc
in-session; auditor cleared with the pc perfectly. How many
hours do you think you ought to spend on that? I should say
three-quarters of the intensive.

The Rock scouted down, located, its lock chains peeled off
of it and in plain view - boy, there goes another awful lot
of hours.

And of course, if it was totally in view, with total
reality on the part of the preclear, he'd just go birumph,
Clear! And it would take you those fifteen minutes to end
the session.

All right, now you've got it.

You see, when you know everything that is supposed to
happen, when you know everything you are supposed to do and
when you can do all of these things with ease, you are no
longer in a state of super-embarrassed self-consciousness.
You are actually confronting the case. Your interest is no
longer on whether or not you did this or you did that, or
something of the sort. Your interest is on the case. And
you know well enough how to do this, that, that when you
decide to do it, you do it effectively, and you get it
done! Now, right now, looking at you auditing, you are
being effective, you are being infinitely more effective
than anybody less well trained. You are being much more
effective, exactly the way you are auditing, than you've
ever been it before. That, I can absolutely guarantee you
and promise you, and I could prove this on profiles.

I could take any auditor here, and I could stack him up
against any auditor less thoroughly trained, and even
though the guy less thoroughly trained might look a little
more relaxed or something, you know, he might look a little
more natural or something, I could take any one of you and
a preclear's profile, and any other such auditor and a
preclear's profile - the end of twenty-five hours I would
show you your pc's profile, way up. And the other guy's
profile, "Well, he just - he gained a little bit. Pc's a lot
happier," he'll tell you. "The profile, the profile doesn't
reflect the actual gains of the case. Preclear told me that
he was much happier." He's knocked the preclear down into
some propitiation, you know, and the preclear says, "I'm
better. I'm better." Got this? All right. With that proviso
I will then unload on you with a barrel-load of grapeshot,
which is this: you look to me, in auditing, like a bunch of
little wound-up marionette dolls. You understand that?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

That's a very legitimate comment, isn't it?

Male voice: Yes, it is.

You'll still do better and get further, auditing like that,
because you know better now what to do. But unless you
improve, your time to clear - after you get out of here (of
a pc) - will be two or three times the number of hours that
should be required.

The difference is that other people who have not been
through what you've been through won't be able to clear
anybody.

Now, I'm just telling you that from where you are at this
moment up to a terrific auditor is just another step.
You're on the road; you're on the road. But you've now got
to learn to live again. You got to learn to be able to do
all this and still be alive.

Now, the whole lot of you can get Clear going right on
auditing this way, particularly if I hang over your
shoulders like I will be next week, breathing hotly down
the back of your neck, saying such deep, abstruse things
as, "Get him to define a people pleaser," you know. "Get
him to define a people pleaser." Person saying, "Well, how
could you help a people pleaser," and so on, so on, so on,
so on, so on.

"Get him to define a people pleaser!"

"People pleaser. People pleaser? People pleaser. People
pleaser? I don't know, what is one?" Now, I'm not trying to
give you the idea that you should go on auditing with me
breathing down the back of your neck. Got that? You got
that? I want you to get the idea you should go through the
rest of an auditing career with the idea that an Instructor
is about to leap every time you make a flub.

Instead of that I want you to get the idea that you can do
all of these things perfectly and still look alive and
natural. Only an expert, such as you're well on the way to
becoming, could discern, in some of the better auditors,
these TRs working, just working, working right straight
through there.

What's he running? He's comm bridging, he's comm bridging
into a new scout. In the process of the scout he finds
something interesting; he knocks it out with Straightwire
and goes on.

Well, where was the bridge into the Straightwire? The
preclear isn't even aware of the fact that a new process
has been entered upon or left. It's just scouting
questions, obviously. See, he's getting everything done he
can do. See? He's just sawing all the proper angles and
chunks and polishing the wood in the proper place, and
getting it all corded up over here, and getting it all out
of the way here, and getting it all added up someplace
else. He's making every question count. Even on a scout he
can't neglect knocking out a couple of major aberrations.

Halfway through a scout he said, "Music boxes, music boxes,
music boxes," and he gets pshewww, you know. Thing falling
off, he thinks "I might as well punch up the cognition
here." "Music boxes? You - people pleaser? That's a good
music - music box a good people... Well, fine. Did you ever
know anybody with a music box? Family ever have any music
boxes? Anybody have any music boxes around the house? You
ever see one?" "Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. As a matter of
fact, I remember now, oh, yes, my mother beat me within an
inch of my life for breaking up her music box when I was
five. I remember that. Remember it vividly, vividly, you
know - swish, swish, swish, swish, swish, swish, swish! Ah,
fine." "Now you do recall - you do recall that instance?"

"Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah."

"You used to be very fond of your mother, hm?"

"Oh, yes, yes, very fond of her. It was an awful break with her."

"You were very fond of her, though?"

"Yeah, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah."

"Well, that's fine. Now, let's look up something else here.
Let's look up something else that could be a good people
pleaser." Pc isn't aware of anything peculiar happening.
Auditor said music boxes, and the pc accommodatingly told
him about it, and the auditor was nice - nice enough to get
interested in it.

And he ran two processes in the process of simply asking a
couple of questions. First question was a Straightwire
question, followed up by a couple of more Straightwire
questions, making him remember just that exact instant. You
know? So, let's make it go bang! All right, now let's plow
the rest of it out by doing what? Recalling, if possible,
an earlier moment of affection for Mother, which is another
process entirely and which applies to psychosomatics. So
here was a scout with Straightwire, and the standard - what
you will hear about shortly - a standard psychosomatic
process. You get the idea? Followed up by a scout. But done
with sufficient ease that nobody got parked on the comm
lines, nobody got parked on the time track, nobody got
stabbed to the heart, nothing got broken in any way.

He just thought, "Well, to hell with auditing people
pleasers if we can just get this lock out of the road. See?
To hell with auditing music boxes as people pleasers, let's
just take the thing off the case. We don't need it, let's
just blow it while it's right here to hand. See? There it
is, blow it. He'd blow it.

Lock chain he's looking for probably had nothing to do with
music boxes, but he keeps this in mind, and he says, "Music
boxes, he-he-he-he-he! Musical theta traps." Something bad
starts happening to the case, you know, a case looks boggy
and sagging and freezing up, and so forth. He remembers he
did have one gorgeous lead-in there, that was music boxes
and he blew a lock off of the thing. He also has a dozen
more, but we're thinking about music boxes, and he says,
"You ever see a theater that played its music out in the
marquee so that you'd go in and buy your ticket?" "Oh,
yeah."

Take him on down, hit the Rock chain. Get the idea? He
knows his business. He knows his business, he knows the
processes that are effective and he knows his business. And
there's a very definite aliveness in his auditing.

Now, in the TRs you'll find a great difficulty in trying to
acknowledge the origins of a pc. Do you realize that more
pcs go out of session because of mishandled origins than
anything else? Someday you'll maybe learn how to handle an
origin perfectly, but perhaps there is no "perfect" way of
handling an origin. I can only tell you the way I know
origins can be handled; I can only tell you how origins can
be handled well.

To be able to do it requires that you first recognize that
there can be an origin, and that it doesn't necessarily get
in your road as an auditor. Most auditors believe that
origins are something that gets in your road.

No, origins are that from which the auditor tailor-makes
with scissors, needle, and thread, the cognitions of the
preclear. They are wonderful things to handle. So instead
of origins holding up the case, you should learn how to
weave them into a case recovery. They have use.

In addition to that you should know how to turn off origins
while giving the preclear at the same time complete
confidence that you have received it. Oh, that's a
fantastic thing.

As a matter of fact, he'll go on originating along a
certain line, until he is certain that the auditor has
understood it and received it. Understanding is the
instrument that handles the origin. Understanding it.

Well, how do you understand it? One of the ways is to find
out more about it. Well, the best way to find out more
about it is, want to know something more about it, which
tells us that we have a point here which is not
synthetically manufactured. It can't be manufactured
synthetically. You have to be interested in what cases are
all about to handle origins.

Now, you can get into trouble handling origins and handling
responses by being too interested, but it usually comes out
all right in the wash. The only error I've been conscious
of for some time is getting too interested in people's
origins. Not that it extended the case, or I led them off
of it or something; they got upset because I was that
interested, but only when the pc had not offered it as an
origin.

Now, let me follow this through. See, he didn't really
intend to originate, and I received what he didn't intend
to originate because I'm so interested in his case. Get the
idea? And then I go in on that real quick, and it sometimes
startles the pc into practically an auditor Code break
which I then have to patch up.

He says, "Well, the best people pleaser there is, is a
wrecked truck."

Well, now that's comprehensible. But he says, "The best
people pleaser there is, is a totally smashed planet
scattered all over earth." And you say, "What?"

Pc is liable to say, "Well, you've invalidated my answer
and ..." See? And you probably have.

You say, "What?" You know, "Where'd that come from?"

Sometimes they give you answers that sound like forecasts
of something or other, you know, and you want to know what
the weather is and you ask them.

And any time you take apart their answers and try to get
anything out of their answers, you're liable to get into
trouble. I don't think there's an auditor so skilled at
auditing anywhere, that he wouldn't get into trouble if he
started taking apart very many of the preclear's responses
to the Help questions. See? So, there's the auditor
considering that an origin has been made, and answering up
to it when it hasn't been made, and this busts things up
sky wide and handsome, because the preclear quite normally
says, "All right, so I can't have that answer. So, you
won't acknowledge it." And you get off the other way.

Safest thing to do, of course, is to wait until the pc
originates something non sequitur to the answer, and says,
"Say, you know, the last four or five theta traps I was in,
they always used music." Now you got a little backlog of
wonder about all this, why, you can pull the whole thing up
by the roots, because a preclear has volunteered it. Get
the idea? But I never let a preclear's bad reactions to an
auditor's rather natural reaction prevent me from
communicating with the preclear.

And I don't think any auditor ever ought to sit there in an
attitude of withdrawal, simply because he might upset the
preclear.

I don't care how many preclears I upset. I don't give a
darn. I can put them back into session almost faster than
they can get out and not with any brutality, either.

But an error that you would make would be not communicating
with the preclear's state of affairs, in not investigating
and asking about things that you're interested in, in the case.

You think it's real peculiar, something about this, see,
you think it's real peculiar that the preclear should be so
fascinated or upset with, or something, on the subject of
juvenile delinquency since it doesn't seem to have anything
to do with anything we're running! Error! This is an
auditor error now, just sitting there listening to this
while you're interested and would like to know more about
it. Error.

Preclear is going on, "Juvenile delinquency this and
juvenile delinquency that and so forth." He's not
originating; every one of his questions had to do with
juvenile delinquency. Every answer he gives you: "Juvenile
delinquency this, juvenile delinquency that; a teenage boy
could blow up a bank, you know." This guy is a thirty-five,
forty-year-old man. What's he talking about "Juvenile
delinquency do this, juvenile delinquency do that." You
never heard any of this on the case before, and he goes on
for a while talking about this.

That's an error. It's not an error as far as the preclear
is concerned, it's an error as far as you're concerned.
You're withholding interest. And that is the only crime you
can commit in the final analysis. Man, you can invalidate
preclears, and get out of it - scat. You can stamp all over
their favorite things, you could say, "Well, I don't
believe - I don't believe in integration myself. I know
you're going all out for it, but I don't." You can go this
haywire - you could even go as haywire as to say, "Well, from
everything you've said I think your mother's a pretty nice
girl - why don't we come off of this?" That's pretty haywire.
That's pretty bad; it'll make a pc break every time. But
that one you can patch up; that one, you can put the whole
thing back together again. You understand? You're within
the limits of reparableness.

But an auditor's withheld interest from the case is not
within the limits of repairability because you are not
being audited as the auditor.

After a while you stack it up to a wooden mannequin just
going through the motions of auditing - withhold that
interest, withhold that interest.

Go ahead and get interested in cases. It's everything - the
whole woof and warp of auditing depends on your interest in
a case.

And we go back to what I was discussing first which is
origins. And the whole ability to handle origins is
contained in interest, and the moment that you have lost
your interest in the case, and you haven't patched it back
up again, and you haven't squared it away, you'll stop
handling origins.

Pc will originate something and you give him a cheery "Yes,
yes. Fine. Thank you." And give him the next auditing question
- they go out of session, swish, and no auditing gets done
thereafter.

And you say, "Why isn't this fellow progressing and getting
well?" Well, you're not interested in him, that's why. He
won't come up with any people pleasers unless he's got a
people there. Something to remember.

Well, how do you handle an origin then? Well, just if
you're interested in cases in general. You know, I've heard
it said that a person really is never interested in a hobby
until he knows something about it. It's fairly true.

Now, you can make this work reverse way to. You can take a
fellow down and show him some rocks in a rock collection,
and you can show him the names of a few of these rocks and
tell him a few interesting facts about rocks. And if you
don't push the information off on him, if he's kind of
volunteering it, you're liable to see him out in the field
someplace collecting a few rocks. You know? "I wonder if I
could find any more of this malachite schist that this
fellow was talking about. He said it was all over this
country. Ah, there's a nice piece." Well, he'll throw a
couple - few pieces of rocks in the car, you know. And next
thing you know a little time go by, well, he'll say, "Boy,
was I stupid. I used to only collect things that had
something like hornblende in them, you know, just green
discoloration and so forth - uh, looking for, really - I
was looking for much more ..."

In other words, he's gotten technical enough to be critical
of what he was doing. Got the idea? But he's well advanced
on the line to being a connoisseur in ice-cream cones if he
simply knows which store sells the best ones. See? He's
well advanced.

He is advanced along the line if he's merely wondering
which stores sell the best ones. Get the idea? But, he's
becoming a connoisseur; he's getting interested. You see?
Now, let's carry this out a little further. You could say
that regardless of whether you are human or not - and
fortunately there are very few human beings present in this
class - very few. Nothing I detest more than a professional
human being. And these pros really get me.

You can't be human and be right. And a few of you people
can be right, so that automatically makes you unhuman;
unhuman, not inhuman.

Now, if we bat this guy in the head or he bats himself in
the head about collecting rocks, you know, he goes out in
the field and farmer says he can't go into that field and
he finds out there are no fields he can go to to collect
rocks, and there are no beaches where there are any rocks,
and people around him are discouraging him from locating
rocks, and having anything to do with geology. And the
local museum changes its curator and they don't have any
collection down there anymore; they sent it all to the "not
Rockefeller" Institute or something. What the hell happens
to his interest in rock collecting, huh? Well, it was
manufactured just by the fact that there were some, and
somebody told him something interesting about them. And
then he went on and developed into a good rockhound, see,
connoisseur: a real one. A geologist just would, in a
university, would sneer at him. He would say, "An amateur."
Get into other fields they call you an "amateur" but when
you get mixed up with universities you become an "amateur."
A professional always sneers at the amateur, just as you
would sneer at some amateur auditing. You go around and you
see some and you say, "Oh, my god! Zzzzt! How did that ever
get loose?" And then hypocritically you say, "I think
you're doing just fine." Eighteen origins, all of them
dropped flat. Auditing question flubbed every question, not
just once. Process changed fifteen, sixteen times; auditor
Q-and-Aed with the preclear. They started out to do
something about his laryngitis and they wound up running
bald heads and they never started the session and it kind
of dwindled out to nothing and they both went out for some
Cokes, you know.

You can see this guy up the track someplace or another;
he's still in-session eight or nine years from now.
Sessions never begin, you know. Everything you know is
right is being totally violated and you say, "Nothing could
possibly happen here." And you would just be absolutely
flabbergasted to find out once in a while he gets something
done. You know, it's sort of like you - hit or miss - get
something done. If you do enough of it, you're liable to
hit something. But here's case interest, actual interest in
cases.

Now, nearly every one of us knows something about a case
intellectually, that we've actually never seen in a case.
We know something could be theoretically true about a case,
or a certain combination of circumstances would be true
about a case, but we've never just sat down and seen it
right there - bang! You know? So there's lots of those things
and you kind of keep wondering if these will ever turn up,
and you're looking now on a via. After a while you begin to
look fairly directly. You know, you say, "Well, that's what
that case is all about - phewww! See? And it's this way and
it's that way." Now, we don't collect cases, we don't
collect cases, we spoil them; we're case spoilers, we ruin
them. We alter the cases around.

But the reason psychiatry has utterly flopped, and it's one
of the biggest flops in the world today, is because they
carefully preserve them. They're scared stiff of spoiling
one of those gorgeous manic-depressive schizes, you know.
They have this wonderful maniac back in a cell and he just
keeps gibbering and gibbering and gibbering, just exactly
the way Kurtz Schnutweiler says in his book on Mania, My Mania.

Fellow came into the psycho ward up here, one of the
hospitals north here, that had a twitch which was
apparently an exact textbook case of Norbert Wiener's. And
I promised Norbert I would never mention the name of
cybernetics, so of course I can't, you know. And I never
do anyway.

And so anyway, he writes in there about a feedback or
reflex moronic type reaction - a "moronic reaction" or
something of the sort, whereby you stick a needle in him
someplace and you can actually trace the current pattern as
it goes through the neurons and get it back somewhere else.

I'll be a son of a gun if a standard case that matched this
textbook didn't come into one of these mental hospitals.
You know, they didn't do anything with the guy for two or
three months, but every doctor in the area went up and saw
this.

When you hit a certain nerve area in the fellow's upper
back shoulder, you got a leg twitch. And so doctor would
come up, and they'd hit him in that area and then they'd
watch that leg twitch, you know? And it's wonderful -
wonderful case. There must be - there must be something to
cybernetics because look at that, guy obviously couldn't do
that unless there was an electronic circuit, and there it
is. And there must be something about the body that has to
do with electronics.

And I heard one of them say, "This proves conclusively that
we should continue to shock people." I don't know how it
proved that, but it did. They have a tendency to preserve
cases.

Now, as long as you have a vast number of available people,
as long as there are lots of people available, you never
preserve cases. But more importantly you'll never collect
any people unless you preserve your interest in how cases
are made up.

And you go checking your interest simply because you've
been told that you should go through an exact patter, and
it's you that'll wind up in trouble.

The idea of being withstrained and withheld from the
preclear all the time when you say he said, "What? What?"
The "don't get it!" "How did that add up with which?" I had
a lovely girl here the other day whose pc was busy running
space opera. She said to me, "But I don't know a thing
about space opera." Well, I'll clue you, I don't know
anything about outer space, space opera either except what
I've learned from pcs and my own track. There she had all
the raw materials of space opera sitting in a pc's chair.

Now, it could upset the pc if she says, "Now, how could you
help a spaceship?" or whatever was being run, you know,
"How could you help a spaceship?" And the pc said, "Oh, I
could use a zongo ray."

She says, "What?" She says, right out of context, you know,
right out of session, she says, "What did you say?" "I said
I could use a zongo ray."

"Well, what is a zongo ray?"

Now, the pc is liable, actually, I will confess to you,
liable to go right back on that question - possibility -
and say, "Now, wait a minute. You mean you won't accept
this answer?" You know? Uhhuhh. And you have to put them
all back in-session again and patch it all up. But it's
worth it if you can find out what a zongo ray is! Therefore,
actually, you cannot afford to get interested in cases
unless you're a very expert auditor! You can do it all by
the book and not by the book, and sitting there and handing
it out any way, shape or form. You know what you're doing
and know what results you are going to get. Now you can
really be interested in cases.

I have a trick in handling origins that isn't really a
trick. I always grab the fundamental from which the guy is
leaping.

You know, he says, "Well we had this train, and it
kept - lots of tunnels and on this particular planet there
were nothing but spongy-like rocks, you know, very spongy,
and so on, and we could bore tunnels through. But the
trains actually never ran on track, and so forth. And
they're - they're doing this and that - that - that and -
and I got into a lot of trouble because I was just a
conductor, you understand? Later on I was in for that
planet. But anyway, conduct and, boy ..."

I'm saying man, this guy has gone so far off the Rock, and
this data is fascinating - but - but he's totally omitted
this because his takeoff point is apparently missing. And
I'm more interested in how the hell we ever got on this planet
with all these trains, from a perfectly innocent processing
of a powder puff. You know? And I'm left with a jump from a
powder puff to a planet.

And I always ask for the gap in the origin; I always ask
for the gap that interests me, you see? When you ask him
for the missing link, you stop and say, "Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
Whoa! Whoa! Okay! Yeah! Good! Fine! WHOA! STOP! Shut up!
Now, listen! Listen now. (Finally got that down.) All
right, now, listen." You know, actually say that to a pc.
You have to patch it up, so what! You can. He'd get used to
it after a while and realize that you can patch it up, so
why protest.

So you say to him, "Now, now we ye got this slowed down,
would you please tell me how we got from a powder puff to a
planet? I'm not criticizing you, I just want to know." You
know? Well, that's about the crudest version of handling an
origin I know, but is more effective by far than, "Thank
you. Good." This guy is pouring his heart out to you, and
you say, "Thank you. Good. Good. Fine. Thank you. That's
fine. You ready for the next question?" "Mm-hm."

Now, there's a wide gap between the one overt handling of
the origin and this other one. But I'll tell you that the
overt handling of the origin is more effective. It's not
very correct but it's more effective. And it's easier on
the auditor because it does display his interest in the
matter.

Now remember it's your auditing time, not the pc's. And you
always get sold on this because if you sell auditing by the
hour, he's paying it forth by the hour. I think this is
just a foolish economic trick from my viewpoint.

Why anybody should pay for it by the hour to interest me is
more than I can fathom, but they do. You get the idea? But
that's the way I look at it. And the time isn't precious
because he bought it - so what! He didn't buy my time in the
first place. If I'm running the auditing session it's still
my time track. Thoroughly! So this guy's going on and he
says, "These big spongy mountains and these spongy rocks
and these trains and, you know, they just had borers right
on the nose of them, and they kept going through these
trains. And after a while they had all these holes,
this - this, and I was just a conductor, and later on I
became emperor." And I say - if I'm really interested in
all this - I say, "Wait a minute, what planet is this?"
Now, this is getting a little easier, see, to handle.
"What planet is this?" "Well," he says, "planet Zed. Yeah,
planet Zed."

"Was this a long time ago?"

"Oh, I guess it was. Don't rightly remember exactly, but
quite a while ago," so forth.

I say, "How about these - these mountains? Keep talking about
the sponginess and so forth. Does that have anything to do
with powder puffs?" See? "Any association between these
two? What's the gap?" "Oh, I don't know. I don't know. Oh,
yeah. Oh, yeah - yeah, I - I - I get it. I get it. I get it.
I - I get it. Had a girl on planet Zed and her name was Powder
Puff." Well, anyhow...

If he could interest me with his origin, fine. If I can get
the case advanced with it at the same time, wonderful. If
he's just burning auditing time and isn't interesting me, I
pull the basics out from underneath him.

I'd say, "What started you thinking about that?" "Do you
remember the old gang?" "What started you thinking about
that?" He has to reach down at the bottom of the chain that
he's now dispersing from. He pulls that, tells you about it
and you've got the origin and you keep on going.

But remember, it's your preclear; it's your preclear. And
he has resigned himself to the Fates. He stands naked in
the winds of the universe, far as you're concerned. You
want to find out something about the whole track? You've
got a preclear right in front of you. Get the idea? You
want to find something about the sex life of the Moranga
Bongie Indians that he has just mentioned? You've got a
preclear right in front of you; it's your preclear.

You think he has the most peculiar computation you ever
heard of. Even at the expense of practically cracking the
whole session up, find out about it; it's your preclear.
About time you took ownership of these things you're
collecting.

And if you think that your interest invades his privacy,
you've got no business auditing, because you're a
professional privacy invader. And when that dawns on you at
long last, that you can invade privacy, that it's your job
to invade privacy and unless you do invade a bit of
privacy, you haven't got anything to be interested in
except a body sitting in a chair. And I know a planet where
they sell these things rather cheaply. Twenty-five cents
you can always go out and buy a body; they have a body
factory up there. Of course it costs you about ten, fifteen
thousand dollars to get a body that moves and talks, and
that sort of thing, but you can still raise ten or fifteen
thousand dollars.

No, you just got a body in the chair - who cares about a
body in the chair? If you want bodies, why, take up a little
internship in medicine or something of the sort. They give
you bodies: they smell, but, you can - you can cut them up
or do almost anything you want to with them, you know? No,
you're looking at the whole history of this universe.
You're looking at the cross-computations of a thetan who is
in and out of trouble in this way and that and it's
interesting material. And as you know more about it, and
as you find out more and more about it, the more of a
connoisseur you are, the more there is to know about it.

Do you realize none of you - one of you asked me the other
day, "Are there any of the old track maps around?" Yeah, I
suppose there are some of the old track maps around. Ah,
now, but don't ask me about a track map. You're sitting
with the finest E-Meter ever made in your hands and you're
sitting with a person as a pc who has been at it and with
it since the very, very earliest beginnings. And you can
read old Electropsychometric Auditing and find out how to
plot dates.

"Was it greater than a trillion years? Was it less than a
trillion years? Ahh. Was it greater than a billion years or
less than a billion years? Ahh. Was it greater than a
million years, or less than a million years? Ahh. Was it
greater than five hundred million years or less than five
hundred million years? Ahh! Less than. Well, was it greater
than two million years or less than two million years? Now
where is it there?" And then get it with over and under,
over and under, over and under, all of a sudden, "It was
1,750,922 years ago." And that was the time the first Fac
One implantation was made here on Earth, see, something on
that order. Not necessarily true, but you can spot them,
you can nail them. And man, when you nail one of those
things down on the time track, your pc will turn into a
canary; he'll tell you all about it.

"This spaceship landed, and it was - we were all standing
around there and we were minding our own business, and the
spaceship landed and a bunch of guys in funny looking white
jumpers jumped out. And we didn't know anything about that
sort of thing and one of them took the headman by the arm,
took him up on a hill and there was a little flash up there
(we didn't see what it was) and the headman came back and
we said, 'What happened?'" "And he said, 'Well, I went up
on top of the hill and there was suddenly nothing.'" "And
we said, 'Oh, yes. Well, then these guys are not
particularly dangerous.' And 'So, well, that's all I
remember.'"

Now where do you err then in auditing? Come on, where do
you err in auditing, hm? What's the difference now between
being able to do all this perfectly and doing it naturally?

Audience: Interest.

You said it!

And that will come and your diffidence will disappear at
the moment when you discover completely, absolutely and
without argument that you can patch up anything that
happens in a session! And then you'll stop being afraid of
making something bad happen.

Now, it would be absolutely fatal to tell somebody who
wasn't as well trained as you, this same fact! You see why
it would be fatal? While they're trying to patch up a Code
break, they're really struggling with the fact that they
can't ask a question! Huhhh! How can you patch up a Code
break when you can't ask a question of the pc? Being able
to handle, guide, and square around a case with speed,
eventually gives you enough confidence to be awfully
interested.

When you find out that you actually do not any longer
injure a case no matter what you do to it - because you
can patch it up as fast as you knock it apart - then you
can afford to be as interested and as prying, and as peeping
Tom, and as investigatorish and as honest and as real as
you actually are in an auditing session as an auditor. You
get me? Now, that's what gives you confidence. That permits
you then, interest.

Yes, you ask a pc about this peculiar answer and how that
added up. And the pc says, "That answer is peculiar? Oh,
you mean you won't accept this answer?" "Nope. And I didn't
really mean that but what the hell were you saying?" "Oh,
now you've done it! Now you've done it. And I was going
along so nicely. And I had this somatic all set." Oh, it
happens; that's the commonest one there is. And you say
after that, "Well, that must never happen again and I must
never question or challenge the pc's answer simply because
I'm interested." All you got to do evidently, sometimes, is
raise your eyebrows. The person says, "Well, how could I
help you?" "Well, I could go out and I could get a police
officer and have him shoot you." And he says this with a
smile, you know. No viciousness behind it, you know.

And you say, "What!" Or maybe you just say ...

Pc says, "Code break! Code break! Code break! Code break!
Code break!"

Now, if you're afraid of the pc doing that, you'll get
afraid to be interested. So your answer is to now acquire
from this moment on, enough confidence in your ability to
patch up a case and square it around, that it doesn't
matter what Code breaks you lay in on the line. Do you
understand that your ability to patch it up is the splendid
exactness with which you can handle those TRs. After that,
you can do anything.

Now, a comm bridge is there because you don't want to
startle or shock a case by changing a process. That merely
demands of you then a very sliding, smooth shift from one
process to another. That's what a comm bridge is.

A comm bridge is not necessarily, "Well, in three commands
we're going to do another process. Is that all right with
you? Thank you." Yes, that's the school textbook answer.
But that's - that's perfect, except for this one thing:
interest in the preclear, interest in his reaction.

You say, "How are you getting along? Getting along all
right? You doing all right now? Think this thing is tamped
down and in place?" You know? "Think in the next question
it's going to rise up and do anything with you? No. You
think you got it licked? All right. All right. Now, here's
just the last question now. And don't run into anything hot
on it now. Let's - last question. Last question. Okay. How
could you help a bugaboo? Good! Thank you! Thank you! Thank
you! All right, that's all! That's all of that! We're off
of that now! "Now listen, I've run into something here and
this needle is sticking all over the place on the subject
of mothers-in-law. And I think we're getting in the
session - have you got a present time problem you haven't
told me about? Oh, you haven't? You don't even know of a
mother-in-law? You haven't even got one? Well, has your
wife got one? Oh, yeah, oh, well, what's your mother been
up to? I - it's the first I've heard that she lives with you.
Now did you come into this session with a PT problem that
you didn't tell me about at the beginning of session? Oh,
you did. All right.

"Now, we're going to run a little process to handle this
sort of thing, because I think we got to get it out of the
road. And I want you to describe the problem here. Describe
this problem - mother-in-law - problem. All right, now let's
get this," you know? And we go through Problems just as a
process, bring it up on the other side, and all of a sudden
we got a different acting case. You understand? And you
say, "Thanks. Now how do you feel about that? Do you think -
you're okay on this subject now? All right. Now, that was
the last question; that was the last question - we're on the
subject.

"Now, let's get back and do something more pertinent to the
existing situation. All right? Now, the auditing command is
'How could you help a bugaboo?' See? Let's get in there now
and let's clean up some more bugaboos. Get the idea? Hm?
You take up what needs to be taken up. You don't Q-and-A
with the case and take up everything it presents. You know
better than to go on auditing the case with evidently a PT
problem every time you say, "mother-in-law" or something
like this, or "A mother-in-law could kill a bugaboo."
"Well, now, how could you help me?"

"A mother-in-law could fry me in oil."

"How could I help you?"

"A mother-in-law ..."

Well, it's all right if it just changes and shifts and
disappears. What if it keeps hanging up? Hangs up for ten
or fifteen minutes, I begin to believe that there is
something here that we ought to look into, and I am not
averse to looking into it at all - pang! And I go right
ahead and look into it, because I'm not afraid to be
interested.

All this adds up, maybe, to a bunch of protests from the
preclear every now and then.

"Well, you've run too many processes on me. I'm all tangled
up and confused. We've got about five started now and we
haven't finished any one of them." "We will before the
session is over. Let's go." See, totally factual
reassurance. Pc eventually responds to this sort of thing.
And you do, you flatten all of them. And you just - end of
session - quite standardly on the end of one of my sessions
I go back and check everything we have done and see if it's
all right, everything's okay, and the pc finally says,
"Yeah, what do you know? I can walk on solid ground here,"
you know? He feels better about the whole thing.

One of the things he's afraid of is of you getting too
interested in him. It's one of the things he's afraid of
and one of the things he tries to break down.

But his confidence in you, at long last, will build to a
point where you can practically get rid of - get away with
anything.

You say, "Was that a Code break?" (which is very good). "Is
that an Auditor's Code break?" or "ARC break?" Anything you
want to say. Needle just as loose, nothing to it. You've
just said, "If you please, if you please, let's calm it
down now on the subject of your grandmother. Let's just
calm it down." And then you say, "Code break?" No, no Code
break. You just told him not to talk about somebody, that's
a shut communication break if you ever heard of one. You
could go that far and you could still get away with it. You
got it? So, my message to you is: Be a good auditor, but
never at the expense of being disinterested in the case.

Always be interested in that case, and you'll be a far
better auditor than you ever dreamed you could be.

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]


