From anon@squirrel.owl.de Mon Aug 31 13:23:12 1998

Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news

Date: 31 Aug 1998 20:23:12 -0000

From: Secret Squirrel <anon@squirrel.owl.de>

Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service

	to <postmaster@squirrel.owl.de>. The message sender's identity

	is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.

Subject: FZ BIBLE 1/3 SHSBC-344 ITSA MAKER LINE

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

Message-ID: <d53566443b2a6f5cd7938aaa37235794@anonymous.poster>

Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net

Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net

Lines: 527

Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:519355 alt.clearing.technology:63217



FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST



TAPE LECTURE SHSBC-344 16 OCT 63 THE ITSA MAKER LINE 1/3



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.



The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings

of Judiasm 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 the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet

are allowed 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



**************************************************



THE ITSA MAKER LINE

Tape lecture of 16 Oct 1963, 

SHSBC-313 renumbered 344



(continued from part 2)





The pc is sort of saying, "Well, I don't know ... Well, you

kept looking at the meter. And so on and so on. I don't

really know whether this item was less yeaow-nya-

wha-wha-wha-whaf ..." And you start to see some of this

kind of stuff and you all of a sudden - not be unnecessarily

cautious - but you suddenly recognize it for what it is.

You've chopped up this auditing comm cycle somehow or

another. Somewhere it is missing. Somewhere something has

gone wrong. Something has goofed somewhere, and right

then - spot it and pick it up right now, without nulling

fifteen more new additional lists, you see, and holding 

up the pc for the next five sessions, you know. Get that

quick. Recognize an ARC broken pc. And recognize how

slightly an ARC break registers when it is actually

beginning to form and pick it up then - don't ARC break 

the pc in order to find out.



Well, there are several wavs to do that. One of them is not

ARC break pcs. As I've just told you, that is next to

impossible. Your own auditing enthusiasms will cause you to 

ARC break pcs. My God! I pulled one the other day you would 

have gotten an infraction sheet for and so on. I saw very 

clearly that on a list an item had rocket read and blown down 

which was not the right item. It was the very exact item 

which the pc was madly listing for, and the pc was actually 

tending to go into a strain on an overlist of trying to get 

this item on the list - and I said, "You just put this item 

down on the list just before this. Could it be it?"



And the pc said, "Why yes, I guess so. Put it on the list,"

and immediately was a little bit nattery about the pen

scratching. And I took the item right back off the list and

put it back on the other list and continued the pc and we

got another one - and the item that was on that list, if

accepted, would have missed two RIs. It came up two lists

later as the right item. And the one which was the right

item was very resistant. It was one of these - well, I'11

say - tell you what the item was - torture. Very resistant

item. You'd call the thing and it wouldn't - wouldn't fire.

It'd start to fire. It - every once in a while you find some

kind of a goofball situation like this. And you call it and

it - blhblhblh - it doesn't quite fire. And it won't let go.

And it goes, ssshhhk! It looks like it's up against

springs. And ordinarily you say that's - that's not the right

item - it's slightly misworded or something. In this

particular case, after we'd listed enough charge off, the

pc continued to assert that was the item and suddenly I

called it, and it fired like mad and blew down. In other

words, it had to be unburdened a bit by listing before the

thing fired.



This is a very peculiar thing. Happens the tops of GPMs are

very hard to run. They don't fire well and so on - the tone

arm tends to stay high. You get four pairs deep into a GPM

and it's running just like a river of hot butter,

see - there's nothing to it. Those first few sometimes are

quite resistant. So, what's the auditor trying to do? The

auditor's trying to be too confounded helpful, and it was

helpful to a point of actually evaluating and putting an

item on the pc's list for him. Well, that's absolutely

forbidden, see - absolutely forbidden. And yet there I sat

with my big, blue eyes wide open and wanted to help the pc

so bad that I just called attention to the fact that we'd

had a firing, blowing down item on the previous

list k-k-k-k-k-k.



Now, that ARC break could have gone into considerable

proportions. But recognizing that the ARC break had

succeeded after an auditing action, see immediately after

the auditing action - picked the item up and put it right

back where it came from. The ARC break went pheeeeu, - that

was that. It didn't even get a chance to form, see. See,

there was just that beginning of the critical cycle,

beginning of attention on the auditor. Now, this is not

important, and I'm not talking to you about ARC breaks or

beefs. I'm allowed a good, big, juicy mistake every

thousand hours of auditing. That's - I insist on being

allowed that. But the point I'm making is here - is

apparently it was a wrong item that was causing the ARC

break. Actually, that really wasn't the beginning of the

ARC break. That pc was very introverted inspecting the

bank.



Now, let's look at this inspection line. Exactly what

happened to the pc's line from pc to bank, see? Just look

at that line. Lets see how mucked up things got from the

standpoint of that line. This line being invisible to the

auditor, don't you see, you've got to synthesize what's

going on and you'll rapidly learn how to do that if you

realize that it's simply a line scanning over things in the

bank. It isn't just a unit area, by the way - think, think,

thinking. You know that. It's an actual line. It's between

this bright spot called a thetan, the real beingness of the

being - whether its parked in his head or he's extravagantly

detached on a reverse flow exteriorization - we don't care

where he is. He is looking from that bright spot. He is

that bright spot - and he is looking at a thing! He is

looking at a thing! It's as - it's as real as a pencil,

don't you see.



And the bank is all laid out geographically, and it has

numbers - a finite number of things in it as far as types of

things in it - a finite number. And that line is stretched

from where he is to one of those things. Well, what

happened when I said, "This item appeared on two lists

back"? What happened to the itsa maker line? The line from

the pc to his own bank. What did I do with that line?

Apparently, I picked up the line and put it on the

auditor - took it off the bank suddenly and put it on the

auditor. Now that was a sudden change or shift of

attention, wasn't it? Well, we call it a shift of

attention - actually, it was a sudden shift of the target of

this line. Here's the line deeply engrossed in inspecting

the bank, see. All of a sudden, auditor picks that line up

and puts it over on the auditor and then moves it back two

lists ago in the GPM just done two lists ago. Here's two

shifts of attention - sudden shifts of attention - and then

puts it over here someplace to recognize that an item has

been missed because, of course, this other item was being

suggested as a substitute for the right item. So there must

have been a realization of that - but by this time the pc

must have been pretty confused. So the pc, then, in defense

of this confusion, picks up the inspection line - puts it

on the auditor and says, "Your pen is making too much

noise." See that?



What can be itsaed around here with certainty? Something

about the auditor can be itsaed with certainty because the

auditor has inhibited anything that should have been

itsaed, being itsaed. You got it?



Now, there's probably a dozen different ways that an

auditor can accomplish these things. There are probably

thousands of different ways - we probably haven't dreamed

them all up. If you don't learn this well, we give you the

assignment of finding out how many ways each one of the

communication auditing cycle lines can be cut by a new 

Academy student. I think you will find out they run 

probably thousands per line - they're probably fantastic 

numbers. It's easy to find out how to handle them right. 

That's the easier part of it. How many ways can they be 

cut? Enormous numbers.



You can refute, you can invalidate the itsa - the thing

being itsaed - you can refute the communication line on

which it is traveling. Like, "Don't talk to me now because

I am busy writing your auditor's report." This is done in

various ways. "Don't talk to me now because I'm busy trying

to keep track of the auditor's reports." It's a - it can

come about as a very studious action: a sort of a little

tiny frown at the pc and then an enormously industrious

writing, you see, of one character or another and reading

over the meter and the pc's going on talking. Don't look at

the pc and keep on doing this and so forth. Eventually, the

pc begins to realize that you're not really writing

anything that has anything to do with him and

accommodatingly follows the auditor's order.



And the pc nearly always follows the auditor's orders one

way or the other. You would be surprised how obedient pcs

are. The bank is 100 percent under the control of any

auditor at any time. And the pc - the greatest percentage of

the time - is doing exactly what the auditor apparently

wants. But get that "apparently." Now the auditor can say

"Put your attention on the ceiling and point to the floor." 

Now, the pc will do what the au - what he thinks the auditor 

apparently wants. Now, if the gesture is more forecful than

the voice, the pc will look at the floor. You say, "Look at 

the ceiling." And the pc - the A greater than B, B greater 

than A, don't you see - will have a tendency to, "Well, 

he's saying look at the ceiling but he wants me to look 

at the floor," see. He gets confused doing this, but he 

obeys - he obeys, you might say, the most forceful apparent 

order.



Auditors' main goofs are made up in giving apparent orders

that he doesn't intend to give. He doesn't intend to give

these orders at all. For instance, you would never tell a

pc, "Now stop inspecting your bank and put it on the

E-Meter." That would be idiotic because there'd be no itsa

and there'd be no TA if you asked this thing. And yet what

is this apparent order? What's the apparent order there?

"Take your attention off your bank and put it on the

E-Meter," see - that's the apparent order.



The pc will nearly always follow an apparent order. Now,

the bank is very idiotic and is always under the auditor's

orders and will do what the auditor says. Therefore,'it

takes the auditor's whatsit and guidance of the pc's

inspection line of the bank, you see - the itsa maker

line - it takes both of those activities in order to get a

bank inspected, see. So the auditor and the pc have got to

be working very close together, and if the auditor cuts

this line - this is going back to The Original Thesis,

explaining some of the things in there, see - now, if the

auditor cuts this line from the pc to his bank, of course,

he's now apparently brought the bank in on top of the pc and

done other things which are undesirable. But he usually is

giving orders he doesn't intend to give. Nobody is going to

argue with the goodwill or the good heart of an auditor.

The only thing I ever find any fault with is occasional

knuckleheadedness. That knuckleheadedness can be pretty

gorgeous. I just gave you an example of it. And yet any

auditor is suddenly liable to this sort of thing.



Well, I'11 give you another example. I'11 have to run out

all of this invalidation of my auditing after this lecture.

But I did this inadvertently the other day in a session - 

don't think you won't. This wouldn't happen to you once 

in a blue, blue, blue moon that the pc can hear the

pencil squeaking. That's why you use a special type of 

pencil that doesn't squeak.



So I'm busy writing the list, and the ballpoint ran out of

ink. This wouldn't happen to you again in a long time, see.

Ballpoints do run out of ink, and you always have a spare

ballpoint around, don't you? So I hastily reached over to

where the other ballpoint was handy and picked it up, and

at this moment there wouldn't have been any slightest

squawk, you see, there wasn't a tremble in the session,

see. And I picked up the other ballpoint, brought it over

here, and it had just enough ink in it to write one more

item. We still didn't have too much randomity going in the

session, you see. Auditor beginning to sweat just a little

bit about this time. I laid aside this ballpoint, but the

other ballpoint was over on another table barely within the

auditor's reach - a different color ballpoint, see. Barely

within - but there was a ballpoint over there - over the top

of a pile of paper. So as not to disturb the pc's

attention, very carefully reached over to pick up this

ballpoint and I said, "Well, I'm going to win after all on

this," you see. And had to stretch just a little bit out of

the auditing chair, and went out of the auditing chair.

Happen to you once in a blue moon. I don't think I've done

a goof like that for ages and ages. Concatenation of silly

circumstances, one on top of the other.



And what do you think happened to the pc's itsa line? Well,

the pc's whole motion was not to ARC break, but to keep the

auditor from falling out of the chair. And got a motion and

locked up a bunch of effort in the middle of the session,

you know, of trying to pick the auditor up when the auditor

went down. It took a couple of minutes to undo all this and

we went on going at a - at a rate because I recognized that

something had happened there that had to be undone.



All right. That's a very unsmooth but unlooked-for

happenstance. Well, if I can do them, man, so can you. So

the thing to know how to do is pick it up at once,

straighten it out at once, and get the show on the road

again without any more nonsense. Because, frankly, anything

is liable to happen to you in an auditing session.



An auditor who feels absolutely serene and secure that all

is going to go well from here on out - or if an auditor has

allergies to anxieties or unpredictable circumstances

occurring in a session - he ought to go to an old ladies'

home or something and retire, because it's going to happen.

The things that have happened to auditors - some guy's

halfway through a screaming grief charge of one kind or

another and somebody hears him down the block and the

relatives come up screaming up to the door, pounding on the

door, trying to get in to find out how Bill is being

murdered or Joe is being shot or something, see. This has

happened, happened, happened.



Now, how does an auditor keep his aplomb, handle the

situation, repair the shift of attention of the pc - what

does he do? How many things can he do to straighten it out?

Well, actually, there's a lot of things he can do to

straighten it out. In the first place, he audits smoothly so

that when he does audit, he gets lots of TA. Got that?

That's a marvelous cushion on which to operate, see. When

something does happen - when it bothers the pc, but not

otherwise - you know, occasionally a water tank can fall

off the roof and come right down through the shingles, and

the pc says, "Oh," and goes on and saying, "and then

I - then I - then I said to Agnes ..." See? You'll learn

this - this goes all the way up to Level IV. Don't you ever

fool with a case that is running nicely, see. Case is

running like a well-oiled dream, you've got the PT

going - you're going down the line. The only trouble that's

going to occur from there on is actually goofs you make.

Case is running fine - don't patch up a case. Don't patch 

up a case that's running well.



Case you want to patch up is a case that isn't running

well, and you only patch it up when it isn't running well.

So if the roof has fallen in or the auditor has reached out

of his chair for a pencil that was out of reach and fallen

on the floor, the first thing you must learn to observe is:

Did it move the itsa maker line all that much? Did it

affect or influence the pc? That's the first thing you

learn, because if it didn't you're not going to repair it.

Because, look, your effort to repair something that did not

upset the pc can itself disturb the itsa maker line and all

other communication lines to such a degree that you can

cause an ARC break. Because what are you doing? You're

cleaning a clean. You're handling an ARC break that didn't

occur. "How did you feel about the water tank falling off

of the roof and coming down through the shingles and so

forth?" "Oh, did it?"



Do you realize it might be a considerable mistake to ask

the pc how he felt about the water tank falling through the

roof?



Many auditors are so conscience-stricken - there is

nothing like having no conscience to be an auditor, see.

Because an auditor gets so conscience stricken sometimes, he

gets so worried - well, I've gotten worried, you've gotten

worried about cases you were running - but gets so worried,

it causes the pc in - to go into just a spin of worry. Gets

so worried about the case that he's putting in a whatsit - a

whatsit all the time on the pc. He's ask - the pc's saying,

"Well, what's wrong? What's wrong? What's wrong? What's

wrong? What's wrong? What's wrong?" The pc isn't doing an

itsa. The pc doesn't have his communication line into his

own bank, everything. He's got a communication line from

where he is to where the auditor is, wondering, "What does

the auditor think is wrong? What does the auditor think is

wrong?" He's trying to itsa the auditor's confusions or

banks. Well, that isn't what the pc's for. That isn't what

the pc's supposed be doing, don't you see? So it goes this

nonsensically. If the pc's itsa maker line from the thetan

to the bank is there and is functioning and your TA is

moving, if a fire engine comes through the front window and

it didn't seem to interrupt the session as far as you could

tell - not by asking the pc but just by casual

observation - you simply ask the next auditing question,

because case repair also interrupts various sections and

portions of the auditing cycle.



In other words, there's no substitute for auditing but

auditing. And you only repair auditing when it isn't occuring.

If you haven't got any auditing occurring, you better find 

out how you're going to get some auditing occurring. You 

can't get any auditing occurring, well, repair the case 

and get some auditing occurring. But it's in more or less 

that order, not the order of "there sits a case, let's

repair it."



"Now let's see. I know this case - this case had Georgie

Burns for, you see, an auditor in 1958, and I've been

audited by Georgie, and uh-huh-huhhuh-huh. And Georgie has

this horrible habit of saying, 'Yip' all the time in the

session. Every time she acknowledges she also says,'Yip.'

And I know that was very annoying to my pc, so the first

thing to do is to repair Georgie Burns's auditing in 1958."

All this without any investigation of the case at all.

Well, that's repairing the case before you've got - before

you find anything is wrong with the case, you see.



And you only repair cases when something's wrong with them.

The case is running well with good TA, why move the case

around? That's the way to stop TA. Why? Because you pick up

this itsa maker line, move it out of the area it's in and 

move it into some other area, and you suddenly bog the pc 

down. You get him into areas he can't itsa or he isn't able 

to itsa or there's nothing there to itsa or they're all 

cleaned up or - you get the idea?



So this pc's sitting there - I can see it now, you see - the

pc's sitting there happily inspecting his bank and he's

running a service facsimile. You're getting about forty,

fifty TA divisions per two and a half hours of session, TA

flying beautifully. This explains the pc's fantastic

penchant for burning dinners, see. And it's got - it's all

going along fine, and all of a sudden, why, some auditing

supervisor says - in the HGC or something, says, "Oh, have

you taken care of that pc's lumbosis? Well, you know she

came in here originally to get her lumbosis fixed up?" And

the auditor, being very nice and sweet and obedient about

the whole thing, turns around and starts working on the

lumbosis at eight TA divisions per session. Lumbosis isn't

going to resolve. That's a shift of the whole program of

the case. Well, get that as a broad shift - it would be

tremendous error, wouldn't it? Now let's move it down to a

very short error. Auditor is sitting there, the pc is

looking in an introverted fashion at a field of cows, you

know. And he says, "Cows. I've seen a cow in this

lifetime - cows, cows, yes, cows and so forth and cows and

so on. Cows. I wonder what this countryside is like here.

Cows - cows..." TA moving, TA starting to move.



The last whatsit the auditor got in on the case, you

see - the last whatsit the auditor got on the case was "How

would baking bread make others wrong?" And finds out that

the pc is inspecting all these cows. He says, "Now, let's

get back to what we were talking about there." Getting TA

action, see, inspecting cows. "Let's get it back to what we

were talking about there, and we were talking about baking

bread making others wrong. Baking bread making others

wrong. You've got the auditing question now." TA - clank!

Dead still. What happened? Well, actually, the auditor

thought the pc was probably being non sequitur. Trying to

push the pc's attention, see - this line, this itsa maker

line - over to baking bread. But he's got TA action, and it

was just around the corner that the pc was going to cognite

that bread and milk, you see, go hand in-glove together.

Big cognitions about to occur, and he'd been a ranch cook,

see. He'd been a ranch cook but never, never, never had

they ever had any milk to make bread with! This is right

around the corner. If that attention line is just let go,

just that - TA moving, everything's fine. The auditor all of

a sudden - one way or the other, by a thousand different

mechanisms - suddenly picks up that attention line, puts it

on something else, you see? TA - no motion. Why? There's

nothing there to make any motion, you see.



This is something like a guy's sweeping a street, see. And

you walk up to him and you say, "Give me that broom. All

right. Sweep the street." "Well, you got my broom. You got

my broom."



"Well, you don't want that broom down on the pavement.

Just - broom's suppose to be over here - be over here on the

curb. Now, all right, we've got it here on the curb. Now

sweep the street."



"Yeah, but - I got to have my broom. I mean, you know, how

can I give you any - huh-huh-huh. How can I sweep the street

with you - with the broom - ?" so forth.



"Now, look. Now, look. I know what's best with this broom.

I know what's best with this broom. After all, this is

street cleaning department property and it must be

preserved, and we're supposed to keep it over here on the

curb and so forth. Now, sweep the street!"



You can see the nervous wreck that becomes the street

cleaner. That's what you're actually doing to a pc. Pick up

the pc's attention line one way or the other - grab it, hold

on to it and then tell him, "Look at the bank now. Yeah,

here, give me that line. Yeah, yeah - let's  - let's  - let's

give me some itsa. Where's your itsa now?"



"Well, I uh - I uh - so forth, and I think it has something

to do with this facsimile..."



"Oh, oh, bbbzzz - the facsimile - oh ho-ho-ho-ho-no, no, no,

we got to look at something else. Now, give me some itsa.

Whatsit? Whatsit? Whatsit? Uh - uh - give - give me that line.

Give me that - give me that communication line. Now, but

don't-don't-don't-don't start moving any attention lines

inside your bank now. And give me some itsa, see. Whatsit?

Whatsit? Whatsit? Don't look. Whatsit?"



Well, you can figure many ridiculous examples on how an

auditor can do this. As soon as you get these things taped,

all of a sudden auditing just is - just - it's just very

relaxing. And on Level TV, it is very, very industrious,

but you're doing an excellent job the whole way of

directing the pc's attention. You're getting that line

directed because the materials of IV permit that direction.

It's a very precise direction. If it's not precisely

directed, God help you. It's something like shooting

sixteen-inch guns, you see, without any pointers.

Everything gets blown up if you don't point them in the

right direction.



But this is the essence of the auditing you were doing, and

any real trouble you're having with auditing, there's some

misconception of these various communication lines or what

you're doing with the pc's itsa maker line or something

like this. Tell the guy to itsa something, then not let him

look at anything to itsa, he'd go berserk. He itsas

something - don't accept it. Say it must be something else.

Something like this. Keep this rattledy-bang going up

somehow or another - you get no TA and you get no auditing

done and everybody goes around the bend.



All right. But I know you're not doing any of the things

which I have been remarking. I know we're all agreed that

I'm the only one that's making any auditing mistakes

lately. So you go ahead and do a good job, huh?



All right. Thank you very much.



(end of lecture)



**********************