FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FZ BIBLE 2/30 UNIVERSES CASSETTES (5TH ACC)

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

CONTENTS: Universes Cassettes (the 5th Advanced Clinical Course)

32 Cassettes containing 33 lectures plus Introduction and Appendix.
The first lecture is also the final lecture of the 4th ACC and is
numbered 4ACC-72. Posted in 30 files ("+" used where a second item
is in the same file.)

01. ..... Introduction
+ 4ACC-72 29 MAR 54 EVOLUTION AND USE OF SELF ANALYSIS
02. 5ACC-01 30 MAR 54 UNIVERSES
03. 5ACC-02 31 MAR 54 SIMPLE PROCESSES
04. 5ACC-03 1 APR 54 BASIC SIMPLE PROCEDURES
05. 5ACC-04 2 APR 54 PRESENCE OF AN AUDITOR 
06. 5ACC-05 5 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: SAFE PLACE FOR THINGS
+ ..... APPENDIX
07. 5ACC-06 6 APR 54 LECTURE: UNIVERSES
08. 5ACC-07 7 APR 54 UNIVERSE: BASIC DEFINITIONS
09. 5ACC-08 8 APR 54 UNIVERSE: PROCESSES, EXPERIENCE
10. 5ACC-09 9 APR 54 UNIVERSE: CONDITIONS OF THE MIND AND REMEDIES
11. 5ACC-10 12 APR 54 UNIVERSE: CHANGE AND REHABILITATION
12. 5ACC-11 13 APR 54 UNIVERSE: MANIFESTATION
13. 5ACC-12 14 APR 54 SOP 8-D
14. 5ACC-13 15 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: EXTERIORIZATION AND STABILIZATION
+ 5ACC-13B 15 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: CERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
15. 5ACC-14 16 APR 54 SOP 8-D: LECTURE
16. 5ACC-15 19 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: UNIVERSE ASSESSMENT
+ 5ACC-15B 19 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: AREA ASSESSMENT
17. 5ACC-16 20 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: REMEDYING HAVINGNESS
+ GP-Spec 21 APR 54 GROUP PROCESSING: REACH FOR PRESENT TIME
18. 5ACC-17 21 APR 54 ELEMENTS OF AUDITING
19. 5ACC-18 22 APR 54 SOP 8-DA
20. 5ACC-19 23 APR 54 SOP 8-DB
21. 5ACC-20 26 APR 54 GENERAL HANDLING OF A PC
22. 5ACC-21 27 APR 54 ANCHOR POINTS AND SPACE
23. 5ACC-22 28 APR 54 SPACE AND HAVINGNESS
24. 5ACC-23 29 APR 54 SPACE
25. 5ACC-24 30 APR 54 SOP 8-DA THROUGH SOP 80-DH
26. 5ACC-25 3 MAY 54 VIEWPOINT STRAIGHTWIRE
27. 5ACC-26 4 MAY 54 BE, DO, HAVE STRAIGHTWIRE
28. 5ACC-27 5 MAY 54 EFFICACY OF PROCESSES
29. 5ACC-28 6 MAY 54 ANATOMY OF UNIVERSES
30. 5ACC-29 7 MAY 54 ENERGY - EXTERIORIZATION


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

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 freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heritics. 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 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 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

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


UNIVERSES (5th ACC) file 2/30 (tape 2):

Transcript of taped lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 

5ACC-1 - 5403C30 

Number 2 of "Universes and the War between Theta
and Mest" cassettes

UNIVERSES

A lecture given on 30 March 1954


This is March the 30th, 1954. I'd like to talk to you about
some of the simpler techniques, some of the real simple
ones. The first one of those we covered yesterday, which is
Self Analysis, next-to-the-last list; and mock-ups, which
is Self Analysis. Keynote of that, of course, is that you
give a bunch of non sequitur mock-ups. Which is to say,
something has to do with a railroad station and something
that has to do with your hat and something that has to do
with your cousin Amy. And this in itself, by injecting
differentiated thoughts, widely differentiated thoughts,
breaks up the identification which is taking place in
somebody's mind and is causing them to think obsessively.

Now, let's get the difference between identification and
differentiation. Now, we can get the differences in any of
these things according to postulates. You mustn't at any
time ever believe that a thetan cannot postulate more
things and think of more things than exist in this or any
other universe.

You understand, he could postulate more and state that more
exists than the limitations, let us say, of m-e-s-t. Then
apparently, you see, he gets so mired down in m-e-s-t, that
he thinks that matter, energy, space and time are
themselves the causative agent of his thinkingness.
Actually, he can think of far more things than matter,
energy, space and time would ever occasion him to think of.

Let's get the reverse picture on this now and see science
here - science deeply immersed in the study of the physical
universe. And with that immersion it then relates all
thinkingness to matter, energy, space and time, and thinks
that all thinkingness would, of necessity then, exist only
below the meaningfulness of matter, energy, space and time.
This is not true. The matter, energy, space and time exist
well below, tremendously low below, the ability of a thetan
to think. You see, he can get thoughts, postulates, figure
things out way, way senior to matter, energy, space and time.

But because matter, energy, space and time do have a
certain set of laws and because they can be agreed with and
because they evaluate for one and so forth, why, one then
conceives, you see, that these things - when a person gets to
be bad off - he conceives that these things, are necessity,
junior... I mean, thinkingness is junior to matter,
energy, space and time. He just says, "Well, the only
reason I'm thinking anything is because matter does this
and matter does that."

So let me warn you right here at the outset that anytime
you pick up a universe and say this universe is the cause
of a thetan's ability to think, you are imposing shackles
and chains to such an extent that the individual involved
will not get well.

Now, I myself, because I borderlined along on physics...
You see, a study of physics is rather conducive to falling
in line with the opinion of physicists on the subject of
the mind. Physicists do not respect the mind. They think of
the mind as some very junior output of energy and so on.
It's kind of a gimcrack machine that got built and has lots
of errors in it. That's the popular, you might say, opinion
in terms of the physicist.

Well, he gets into that state because he can extrapolate;
he can figure out, from all the laws and rules of physics,
human behavior. Naturally, he can figure it out. But if he
figured just a little bit further he would find out there
was more behavior than that explained by matter, energy,
space and time.

Let's take Newton's laws of interaction: Every action has
an equal and contrary reaction. All right, that's
interaction. Now, if you hit this object here, it hits back
to the extent that you hit the object at the moment of
impact. You see that? Every force has an opposite force.
If you hit the earth, the earth hits you, see that? That's
interaction.

Now, let's take acceleration. That if you keep on pushing
on something it'll keep going faster. Everybody dramatizes
this in terms of police-force action. They think if they
just push a little bit harder and shove a little bit faster
then everything will go just a lot faster.

Life however, all of a sudden, doesn't react to that one.
It exceeds that after a very short space of time. It says,
"We're being pushed too hard," and it turns around and
stands dead still, you know? And says, "Go ahead and push a
little bit harder."

Well, you could say, "Well, that's really interaction
taking place - shift over there." It isn't.

Now, we have lots of words, like inertia. There's the laws
of inertia. The tendency of an object to persist in a state
of motion or persist in a state of immobility, despite
exterior forces, and something that continues to persist in
a state of motion until acted upon by an exterior force, so
forth. Theoretically then, an individual would keep right
on doing everything he was doing until he was acted upon by
an exterior force.

You would, for instance - if you sat down to shell some
corn - you would go on shelling corn until somebody came
along and gave you a push which stopped you from shelling
corn. You see that? I mean, that would be inertia applied
to the human mind.

And yet, even (quote) "pastoral psychology" has today
fallen into the entire error of figuring everything out
this way. They look at the mechanical laws of
stimulus-response and they say, "Well, now look, that's how
human beings act."

This is not justified. It's not justified. Human beings
don't act that way - unless they're so mired down in the
material universe that they are completely obeying the laws
of the material universe, which of course, then makes them
obey the laws of matter, energy, space and time, so
stimulus-response behavior is the only result.

So a person who is very bad off - now, we'll, just tie this
right in with book one - a person who is very, very bad
off; then, can be expected to follow the laws of the
physical universe in terms of his own behavior. He will
keep on doing something until stopped by an exterior force.
He will keep on moving faster and faster unless acted upon
by an exterior force. Every time something pushes him he
will immediately shove back, see that?

And what have we got there? We've got Newton's three laws
of motion in terms of human behavior and we have described
the reactive mind. Well then, the reactive mind would
apparently be then that portion of thinkingness which was
so thoroughly entrapped in the physical universe, and so
thoroughly agreed with the physical universe, that it
behaved only as the physical universe behaved. See that?

Now, here we have a distinct problem. It says that that
person who has thoroughly agreed with the physical universe
begins to follow the laws of the physical universe. And
this results in this stimulus-response type of thinking
which is a matter of engram restimulation and you know,
some stimulus acts upon something and that gives a response
which gives another stimulus which gives another response
which gives another stimulus. He starts to go through life
that way. There isn't an independent thought along the
track. He doesn't, of his own volition, start doing
something else without cause, without reason.

See, he couldn't suddenly say, "Well, I'm tired of shelling
corn." He wasn't tired at all, he just says, "I'm tired of
shelling corn. I'm going to sit here and do nothing for a
while." Nothing happened. He wasn't tired. He had been
shelling corn for a few minutes, now he's going to sit there.

Now, the physical universe would ask this of him. That in
order to get tired of shelling corn, an energy of
exhaustion or an exhaustion of energy, should have entered
in so as to impede his forward progress in the shelling of
corn. And at that moment he would then have the reason
required to stop shelling corn and rest.

Now, stimulus-response reaction - stimulus-response action,
activity, thinkingness - is of course not self-determined;
it's other-determined. The C's of the communication lines
are always elsewhere. Let's just look at somebody operating
in life on a stimulus-response basis entirely and we'll
find that the C's are all over the environment and that
none of them are where he is.

The physical universe, then, demands that if it's agreed
with, that C be everywhere else but not with the person. A
person is not to be cause. Agreement, total agreement, in
terms of energy, behavior, thought, thinkingness and
everything else with Newton's three laws of motions would
bring about a condition whereby an individual was inhibited
from being cause at any time. He could never be cause; he
would always be effect.

And so, to supplement this and supplant it and get rid of
the liability involved, they say, "Well, there must be a
cause someplace," so they invent a God. And they say the
God must therefore stand out there and be cause all the
time because it's so obvious that we can never be cause
because we just run on Newton's three laws of motions
without even knowing about Newton.

I don't know, you see, that Newton didn't invent these
three laws of motion and then and thereafter, gravity and
other things started to act upon the human race. Gravity
isn't one of them; he also invented gravity. And we notice
right afterwards there was a tremendous incidence in
insanity - a rise.

Now, we could go ahead and be very foolish this way and say
all these things simply result from postulates. So somebody
like Newton comes along and invents gravity, so people then
and thereafter stick to earth.

But you know that's not very far from the truth. A bunch of
thetans had to be fooling around and trying to figure out
how to stay in concourse with each other. They had to
invent present time. Well, they had to, otherwise they
couldn't communicate with each other, you see? But they
didn't have to invent present time because there wasn't any
time going on. So they were always in communication with
each other and maybe this got to be boring so they
invented time, which meant spaces disappear and new spaces
appear. Particles go this way and particles go that way, so
now we've got time, so we don't have to be bored with
somebody talking to us all the time, because we can be in
this kind of time.

Actually there are universes in which time is so lightly
held and so poorly agreed upon that an individual is liable
to run into some situation where the fellow finds himself
in a house and he says it burned down yesterday. And of
course, there is no house around him the moment he makes
this postulate. You see, it burned down yesterday so
therefore it's not there, so therefore he's not in it.

Well, you could get just this foolish about time, but
there's greater truth in that than there is that time, that
the progress of forces and so forth, is orderly and is
coordinated simply because it is senior to life. It is not
senior to life; it is junior to life.

Now, nearly everything that you can see, smell, experience
in terms of coordinated or cooperative behavior and so
forth, is junior to self-determined behavior. As an
individual agrees more and more, his flexibility of action
gets less and less.

So if we go out here. .. Well, let's go out here and play a
game of baseball. We play according to the standard rules
of baseball. Then we say, "Well, let's put another
arbitrary in here. Let's agree that the batter there should
have a much bigger bat. We have immediately altered the
game of baseball and made it much harder for the team that
is pitching, to win. But recognizing this, we say, "Well,
let's remedy that. Let's have it that although the batter
can have a much larger bat, he also must be blindfolded."

Well, that's fine. That's a little change in the rules of
baseball. And now, we'll change it further. We will say
that the team which is pitching should have extra men on
it. Instead of nine men, when the team goes... one of the
teams goes to bat, why, the other team immediately has
eighteen men, the team that goes to bat only has nine men.
And therefore we will put on extra first basemen and extra
fielders and extra short stops and so forth. Well, you find
out the game slows down a little bit so you decide that
you'll have a much lighter, bouncier ball that can be hit
further. you see where you're going?

Next thing you know that game is going to be dead still and
stopped. Sure, we have this lighter, bouncier ball, so now
we increase the team that is pitching even further. Make it
impossible for the ball to drop anyplace on the field
without being caught. And so then we'd have to turn around
then and try to make it possible for the ball to be hit
harder or hit further or something. And then we'd have to
add more people to field. And we're just working down into
further complexity. And we're actually working toward a
field completely packed with men. And everything sheltered
in such a way that really the ball can't be hit at all.
We'd finally have to outlaw any pitching. You see that what
we'd do is work down toward motionlessness.

Any time we take a set of rules and add in more arbitraries
and more arbitraries and more arbitraries we eventually get
to a halt.

Now, let's say a bunch of thetans got together and says,
"Well, now let's have some time here. Let's have particles
acting in one direction or another." And some other thetans
came along and said, "Well, that's all right, we'll
subscribe to this, but there ought to be a little more
complexity here." They added some more and then they added
some more and then they said finally that the shortest
distance between two points is a straight line. That's an
arbitrary, Okay. All right, that's all right.

Now, let's have the fact that energy is more dense when
it's condensed. You might as well say, you know, energy
becomes... disappears when you condense it. You might as
well have said that. But they didn't; they said it becomes
more dense. 

They would eventually have done what? They would eventually
have gotten down to postulating all of these laws of
motion, and agreeing upon them thoroughly. All the laws of
space, motion, energy, atoms, molecules, fission, objects -
they would have eventually evolved all these things, all
the time getting down closer to stop. They're making the
game more and more complicated by agreeing harder and
harder upon these rules.

Now, the break-point of it would be somewhere along the
line they would have conceived that the game was greater
than themselves. That's the only fatal postulate that
anybody can make: "The game is greater than I."

And yet we see writers, we see all sorts of people trying
to put this over all the time. "You only really live when
you have sacrificed all." You know. And... oh, it's ...
it's terrific. They give medals to guys and so forth
because they have considered the game greater than they
were. Actually these wars they fight out there, these ...
During the last few lifetimes I got to know pretty well
about war. It's an interesting game. But they become
obsessed. That's the only thing wrong with war. The...
Mainly the thing wrong with war is that everybody... it's
very certain that they should hurry up and wait. It isn't
the fighting that's really wrong about war, it's standing
around doing nothing. It's the motionlessness of war. Well,
how did the motionlessness get there? It got there because
the war was always greater than the soldier.

And armies dramatize this in peace time. They're just a
buck private; they're just a sailor; "You're only an
officer," "You're subject to orders," "You must
whaf-whra-rhaa-frr-hrra." And if you ever ran into a bunch
of people that were having a hard time with their minds,
it's people in the military. They have a real hard time
with their heads. They do assume thoroughly that their
minds are in their heads.

Well, with everybody assuming the subject of everybody
above me is superior and everybody below me is a junior
and the game is greater than all of us, an inanimate thing
over there called the book of regulations, that's much
greater than anyone of us; you of course go into a
dwindling spiral on the subject of sanity. And when this is
pushed home a little bit too hard you get a ship about
the... Oh, I don't know, let's take a ship like I was on
during the last part of the war. I wasn't skippering her.
They were getting out of a crew of about 550 men, they were
getting two psychos a week. Two guys were going crazy
every week, out of 550 men.

The fellow who was in command of that ship - chosen in the
hurry-scurry of files and so forth - he shouldn't have been
permitted to run a pig, much less a ship. And he for
instance, caused a mutiny; he did various things. Wonderful
that his whole philosophy was the enlisted man is no good,
is just a dog who ought to be stepped on and so on and that
the ship and so forth was much more important than any life
aboard her - this sort of thing - that this philosophy went
along with two psychotics a week, but it did.

Now, anytime then the game is greater than the individual,
why, you can expect trouble. You can expect that the motion
will practically stop. If you invent a game where the game
is much greater than the guy, you'll find the game slowing
down, slowing down, slowing down and eventually becoming
about as mobile as a rock.

Well, what's this course? What's this dwindling spiral? It
is just that we agree upon these rules and then we
introduce more arbitraries to limit us further and we
restrict and restrict and restrict and restrict. And the
end product of all restriction is stop.

Now, that is the history of any game. And the MEST universe
is a game consisting of barriers. This game is peculiarly a
game which specializes almost entirely... or does - pardon
me; "almost" - it specializes in barriers. It is a game of
barriers. Let's get that in two parts now.

(1) It is a game. It is not senior to any individual. It is
junior to any one of us. That's (1).

And (2) Consisting of barriers. And we find out that the
barriers are these: They are the barriers of space.
Distance itself is a barrier. If you're here and the
nearest glass of beer is New York, you're certainly not
going to have a glass of beer. You see that? Across the
barrier of distance.

Now, let's take just a plain barrier, that we conceive to
be the barrier that the word means more specifically;
that's a wall or an object. And you see of course those
exist around in profusion - lots of walls, lots of objects
which keep you from moving a piece of energy through them.
They don't keep you from moving through them, you just get
so you think that. But they keep energy from moving through
them. And then there's actual barriers of energy, live energy.

Let's take a single strand fence going around a very large
property. Well, that single strand isn't barbed, anything
that ran up against it very hard would certainly break the
strand. But that single strand has in it about a thousand
volts of electricity. That is an energy barrier. Now...
So there can be a barrier of energy too.

Now, what other kinds of barriers are there? There's one
more kind, the most important kind of barrier. Time. That's
right, time. The great barrier. You've got just about as
much chance of getting back to 1760 as you have getting to
2008 in the next couple of seconds. Simply because time
itself is an arbitrary of motion. You have two particles
moving in coordination with each other: every time they
move they form a new space.

The definition of space is a viewpoint of dimension. And if
you change the dimensions you would have new space. Because
the only reason the space is there is because the dimension
is there, the points are there. So if you change the points
they would obviously be new points. If you moved any point
a quarter of an inch, it could be considered to be a new
point. Why? Because it's in a new position. And that's the
definition of the point anyway. It is simply a viewpoint of
dimension, and it's something that just demarks a
dimension. I don't care where the particle is - a
cigarette butt, a mote of dust - each and every one of them
are demarking some limitation of some space somewhere. If
you consider it in this fashion, time itself becomes very
comprehensible because it's merely the co-motion of
particles, the co-action of particles, uniform rate of
action of particles. Well, if we say the uniform rate of
action of particles, we would say the uniform formation of
new spaces or the consecutive formation of new spaces.

Let's take a photon traveling here from the sun. It is
traveling into a lot of new positions. So every photon
coming from the sun is describing new spaces. Maybe there
isn't a single photon which arrives here from the sun, as a
matter of fact there isn't. There would be no one photon
which left the sun and arrived here. But there would be an
impulse which gave us a sequence of positions which, when
you've described them or graphed them, could look like one
photon arriving here.

You could say, you know, that this is a problem in physics
or quantum mechanics or some vast thing like that. No, this
is a problem in agreements. That's all it's a problem in.
If you and I got together in making a universe and we
agreed that new spaces would immediately become fixed and
appear five feet to the right of the old space, yeah, we
could have a universe where it did just that.

Well, what kind of time would this make? Horrors. Lord
knows what would occur. But let's say that we had just one
space - now, let's get more. more sensible about this - let's
say we just had one space - no particles; we just had one
space. Now, we're going to go on a different postulate
about particles. We're going to say, "Particles are fixed
and invariable and do not necessarily describe spaces. But
these particles can be created and we can - any one of us can
create a particle and we've got this one space here."

All right, we'd start creating things and we'd create more
things and more things and more things and the first thing
you know that one space that we had, which going... it
would be so full of junk that we would be so sick of
looking at - you know, we've just got that - we would have
gotten the game to a stop, wouldn't we have? It would be
the game of creating masses or forms. One space and the
game of creating masses or forms would get to a stop when
that space was full.

So we'd have to enter in first, destruction. We'd have to
be able to destroy forms. We'd keep this one space and we
would destroy all these forms. We would make a form and
then we'd make it against the law to create a new form
unless you destroyed your old form. We'd make that a law.
You'd have to destroy an old form before you could create a
new form.

Then you would get this curve of "a form will persist or
survive after it's been created until it is destroyed." We
would get the curve of create, survive, destroy. That is
the curve of this universe.

Now, either way we would wind up here with an undesirable
situation. We have a terrific limitation in this one space.

Let's say we filled this one space up. What might be our...
another choice? We could say after this is all filled up it
will then disappear and everything in it will disappear
and a new space - clean, open and with nothing in it - will
appear. We could just say that, see. This space ... we've
got this space, we fill it all up, as soon as it's
chock-a-block, completely full, it will disappear and a new
space, clean and so forth will appear. And we've agreed
upon that. And we'll get into a habit of saying the new
spaces will appear every time they are, to our
satisfaction, full. But we'll get into the habit of having
a new space appear every so often, so that we don't have to
get into an argument about how full it is. Well, then...
you see, the space didn't... full of stuff didn't go
anyplace, it didn't have to. One merely said, "It's gone,"
and it's gone.

You'll find a lot of people messed up on time, you'll say,
"Now, where's yesterday?"

And they'll say, "It's over here on the right," or something.

I mean there's remarkable things. Time is directional. It's
not directional. And you straighten him out on time; when
the... You say, "Put it in yesterday." You know?

And fellow says, "Okay." You say, "Where did you put it?"
And he'll say, "Why, I put it over here on the right," or
"I put it just below me." The way you get the reaction is
to say, "Now, can you still see it?" And the fellow says,
"Yes." "I told you to put it in yesterday." "Well, I did."
"And yet you can still see it, huh? Oh? Well, are you
looking at the breakfast you ate yesterday?"
"Well, no." "Well, where did it go?" "Well, it's just
gone." "Well, all right. Let's just have that thing you're
putting in yesterday, gone."

And that is the essence of time. It's the... What's here
that you put in yesterday is simply gone. Not gone
anyplace, you see. It's just gone. Gone by what necromancy?
The necromancy of agreeing it's gone. That's all there is
to that. It's one of these idiotic problems. I mean, you
could have philosophers and sages sitting around for ages
writing pages and pages without ever recognizing the
idiocy of this thing. You know, if a fellow says it's
there, it's there, and if a fellow says it's gone, it's gone.

Well now, an individual then can handle and create time
actually. Handle it, make it disappear and so forth, as
long as he's capable of making a free postulate. If he's
incapable of making a free postulate, he of course cannot
handle time. You'll find out that there's a direct index to
the ability of an individual to handle, experience and use
time, and his ability to make a postulate. Individual can
make a free postulate which is not modified in any way,
then he has no trouble with time.

An individual who's gotten down to a stimulus-response
basis whereby everything is handling him, he is not able
any longer to make a free postulate - you'll find out the
main barrier he's suffering from is time.

Time, time, time. He'll talk all the time about time. He'll
spend all of his time telling you that he doesn't have any
time. At 1.5 on the Tone Scale this is terrifically
manifest. This is just routine. A person will sit still
with folded arms doing nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.
And you say, "Why don't you... why don't you do something?

And they'll say, "Oh, I haven't got the time." Well,
they're sitting there doing nothing, but "I haven't got time."

Another one just a little bit higher than that on the Tone
Scale, they haven't got time to start anything. You know,
they haven't got time to do it so they can't start it,
don't dare start it. Down low on the Tone Scale they know
it's always too late. Now, you get somebody at grief and
that is his common statement. Anything you ask him will be
found in regard to time - it will be found to be too late.
If a person were totally in grief and you pointed to a
clock his first reaction on observing the clock would be
it's much too late. Too late for what? He wouldn't know.
It's just too late.

He also would have the rather interesting behavior of not
going to dinner. The dinner is at 7:00, it's now 6:30. He
would not go to dinner. Why? Because he can't go to dinner
because he doesn't have... It's too late. At 6:00 o'clock
even, a dinner at 7:00 would already have been eaten.

This is... sounds a little scrambled to you, but that's
what's wrong - it's scrambled. The individual can't make a
free postulate. And believe me, the rules and regulations
of the physical universe are not adequate to provide enough
for the thetan to do. They are just not adequate. They are
not even vaguely adequate.

They inhibit motion to a tremendous degree. They force him
into various types of agreements without any consent and
it's just gone on too long and it's gotten too thick and
heavy, you might say. Just too many things have entered
into the game. So, it... you could put... For your own
purposes in criticizing a society or something, you could
put a little question mark after the game part of the...
MEST universe is a game consisting of barriers - you put a
little question mark there, and say, "It once was a game
consisting of barriers." It's now an ardure consisting of
barriers.

Now, the whole universe, theoretically being made out of
agreements, could disappear on the breaking of the
agreements. And this would be true if there was only one
universe involved. But the MEST universe is protected by
the fact that every thetan in it is in at least a million
universes.

He's in lots of universes; he's not just in the physical
universe. In the first place, he's in his own universe. He
had his own universe before he collided with the physical
universe. He made his own universe approximate the physical
universe and then his own universe became smaller and
junior, and so he... there's two universes. His own
universe approximated the physical universe and is now a
map of the physical universe - very small map, too. It shows
every impact he ever had in the physical universe. You
could call this a sort of an electronic gel usually found
to surround the individual. In an occluded case, it's
totally black and pulled way in and subject to some of the
darnedest manifestations. But if that were just those two
universes, that would be very simple too. We could simply
say poof and the MEST universe would disappear.

Well, it isn't that simple, in terms of universes. There's
another universe. The thetan is in his own universe which
has gotten into the physical universe which is junior to -
it's now... his own universe junior to the physical
universe. And he is in a body which has a separate and
independent universe but he's interlocked with the body's
universe. So he's got these two universes interlocked with
the body's universe. Well, this wouldn't be too hard to
take apart. But this body and he and this system of
universes - they have been in collusion with and collision
with an awful lot of universes on the track. This body has
had other thetans running it in earlier lives. A
different... this GE, you see, when he was a different
body, had another thetan running it and this thetan had a
universe which influenced the physical universe and the
body, too. So we... this is. this body is a mass of
interconnected, interlocked universes.

All right. And the thetan has been in connection with many
bodies, so therefore in the terms of lives, he of course,
has this all knotted up. Well, that means that he's been in
connection with a lot of bodies, which bodies were in this
kind of a state. So his universe has been influenced by
each universe of a body he's been connected with. Every
body he's been connected with had its own universe and he's
still packing some sort of an imprint of all these universes.

Now, let's just get into the current lifetime. And we find
out that the body, if it's convinced of anything, is liable
to be convinced of the fact that it's in Mama's universe.
Actually it existed in Mama's body, it was regulated and
changed around by Mama, and Mama certainly had a lot to do
with the formation of this body.

So of course, then, we have Mama... Mama's universe - 
physically, the body was inside Mama, so therefore
this fact that it's inside Mama's universe is too easy to
assume. So we get the body being totally dependent upon
Mama. Mama is changing it around in space all the time and
the body is certainly, at least slightly, living in Mama's
universe.

So therefore our preclear... our preclear would have -
the most perfect state you'd find him in; you'd find this
boy in just fabulous condition. This would be the interlock
of universes. (1) He'd be in his own universe, which was in
the physical universe, which had gotten smaller than the
physical universe which was intermingled with his body's
universe which was crossed over in Mama's universe. That's
the least pattern that you would discover.

Now, you're trying to bail this boy out, which is to say
you're trying to get him up to a point where he can make
freedom of postulates. Well, there's a law governing
universes that seems to be a basic agreement and that is...
And this law, by the way, you wouldn't like to do without.
If you're in your own universe then your postulate should
stick in your universe, shouldn't it? I mean, when you make
a postulate in your universe that would be the postulate
that goes. Now, let's suppose there's somebody else in your
universe visiting or something, and his name is Henry and
he makes a postulate. His postulate wouldn't go would it?
It'd have to be your postulate that went in your universe.
That right? Otherwise it wouldn't be your universe. So by
definition, if you're going to have a universe of your
own, your postulate will have to go in it, over and senior
to anybody else.

So any universe is subject chiefly to the postulates of the
god of that universe. And this is practically a law. Any
universe is subject chiefly to the postulates of the god of
that universe. That's why we get this in the physical
universe. How easy. Everybody says, "Well, there's a God
and this God has made certain postulates and we're subject
to his postulates. We live by them every day." By the way,
every time that we engage in any activity, we're engaging
in some morality which is ostensibly laid down by the God
of the physical universe.

Well, if you're in Mama's universe, you're subject to the
god of that universe's postulates and that's Mama's
postulates. In other words, that universe which you are in
is subject to Mama's postulates.

Now, you're going to unmake all the postulates that are in
a preclear's bank? Think of that for a moment. He's in
another universe. And if we could just say, "All we have to
do now is change our postulates and all be Clear," you see,
that would be the simplest thing in the world, unless this
other law existed. If this other law existed, why, we
wouldn't be able to do that and we can't do that. We know
by experience that we can't say to a preclear, "All right.
Just make up your mind to be Clear. All right. Now you're
Clear. Next."

So what is the bug that stands in the line? Postulates are
the most senior thing there are. No set of agreements are
senior to postulates. Individual postulates are always
senior to any pattern of agreements. Any mechanical pattern
is always junior. So therefore, we say all you'd have to do
is just get somebody to change his mind and he'd be all right.

And you get in there and you slug and you run this and you
run that, trying to get somebody to change his mind, change
his mind, change his mind. The poor guy can't change his
mind because he's living under the reign of postulates of
the other god. In other words, if he's in somebody's
universe... He understands this, he's agreed to this;
this too is an agreement, you see? He's agreed that the god
of a universe is the one who makes the postulates for that
universe and he's living, let us say, in Mama's universe or
Papa's universe or his wife's universe or his - even this -
his dog's universe, and those universes are subject to the
postulates of the gods of those universes.

And you're not trying to change the preclear's postulates.
You're trying to change the postulate of a dog who departed
this life forty years ago. You're trying to change the
postulates of Mama, who actually isn't even vaguely sitting
in that auditing chair. She's clear over by Keokuk
someplace - maybe dead and gone. Who knows?

More serious than that, you're trying to change the
postulates of gods of universes who have long since
evaporated into dust and the preclear doesn't even remember
who they are.

And this interlock of postulates itself is how postulates
get so thoroughly agreed upon. Nobody can pick his
postulate out of the mess. Not being able to, of course, he
becomes junior to any agreed upon postulate. Somebody, if
he is in terribly bad shape, somebody can come along and
say, "Well, the city council has just agreed that all men
have to shave their heads." He could be in bad shape. If he
believed this, he'd have to go home and shave his head.

All right. Then it becomes a problem of taking universes
apart in order to take postulates apart. Be two
theoretical channels. If an individual owned everything - 
here's where ownership cuts in, you see - if an
individual owned everything, why, it would be the simplest
thing in the world. He'd just suddenly say, "Well, I own
everything and therefore they're all my postulates. I'm Clear."

There's that theoretical channel. Processes which lead him
up toward the conviction of ownership of all and which
desensitize his feelings about "It's his, it's mine," and
so forth. Well, that course is open and the other course - 
there are two other courses - another course that is
open on the thing, of course, is again just sorting out
postulates until he becomes no longer afraid of them or
resisting them or mixed up with them in such a way that he
can make an independent postulate.

You know, just drills, but which would lead him eventually
to making independent postulates. You can do these. That's
a long course but it'll work. You can just drill him into
making independent postulates and postulating things on and
on and on and on and on until he will discover that he can
be cause regardless of where he is or what he is. And at
that moment he escapes into some freedom.

All right. The last one would be taking the universes
apart. Now, this is not a fast process, but it's an
intensely workable process. Let's just take these universes
apart. Well, we're going to take something apart; what's
holding them together? Well, you say agreements. And
agreements were originally born out of postulates.

All right. Fine. Is there anything mechanical about it
that's agreed upon? Yes. Let's take two globes identically
the same size - that is, two spheres that contain space and
so forth - and let's take these two spheres and let's call
one of them A and one of them B. And we'll take sphere A
and set it up on a table, and sphere B and set it up
alongside of it. And we'll find out that these two globes
do not influence each other until struck together. They
each are based upon the postulate that something exists,
that something being space. Then there must be an
additional postulate that the somethingnesses have
collided. So we have A and B not influencing each other
until they're banged together.

Now, the point where they are banged together is liable to
bear a scar. And where B hit A we have a point which is an
impression from A. And when A hit B we retain then a point
on A which tells us that B's been there.

All right. All right. Let's smash them together in such a
way that they coincide with each other. And let's hit them
lots of times. Do you know - this is a fact: you could take
a hammer and beat those two globes so thoroughly that you
would not any longer be able to distinguish which was A and
which was B.

And this is done by impacts. And if you're going to go into
the mechanics of universes at all, it had better be either
on the basis of where they can't be destroyed or the basis
of where they can be. And you're dealing in any case with
the mechanism which interlocks universes. Identical points
in the two universes, when struck, bring about the
illusion that those two points are the same point. So we
have a certain point in universe A, which when struck in
coincidence with universe B, those two points struck, that
make it indistinguishable whether A or B were struck. Which
was struck? A or B? They were both struck. Well, which is
A? And which is B? They become indistinguishable. There's
two universes enmeshed.

Well, this could be a very weighty subject, couldn't it?
I'll tell you a little story. A dog got hit by a car. He
passed that point many times afterwards. But the first day
he passed that point where he'd been hit by a car, he went
at least a hundred yards out of his way to avoid the space.
The car was no longer there. The person who was driving the
car was no longer there. But that point in space was there.
And that dog avoided the point in space and went straight
up to the top of the hill where the car was that had hit
him - still had some of his fur on the front bumper - and
paid no attention to it. And the person who was driving the
car and had hit him had come out immediately afterwards,
spoke to the dog, and the dog paid no attention. Didn't
worry him a bit. But thereafter, every time the dog passed
that spot on the road, the dog avoided that spot.

How would you possibly unoccupy a universe? It's easy to
occupy one. But how would you unoccupy one without your
consent? It would be by the process of avoiding every spot
in it, wouldn't it? If you totally, against your will,
unoccupied a universe, got out of one, it would be by the
process of avoiding every single spot, one after the other,
until there was no spot left in it, because all the spots
in it had to be avoided. Do you see that? Now, that is
other-determined disoccupancy of the universe. See that?

What do you think happened when your universe was in
collision with the physical universe? Let's say you could
approximate your universe and the physical universe
perfectly - same size. And then there were blows. You ran
this into that. Planets ran into this and that and you
stumbled over rocks. Each time anything like this occurred,
any time one of those impacts occurred, you had a spot
there to be avoided.

This is experience. This is knowing how to learn. This is
learning. You move off of spots. You know what to avoid.
You get things that mustn't happen again, and so forth.
You'd gradually, if you had a billion, billion, billion of
these spots to the billionth power, you'd practically get
the whole darn physical universe filled with spots which
mustn't be occupied anymore. And your effort to move
through the universe would be very impeded. And you would
pull your universe down to a very small size so as to
protect it. But you couldn't touch it either, could you,
because it was all full of spots that mustn't be touched again.

Sad and dreary picture isn't it? Horrible picture, as a
matter of fact. It would bring about the almost total
withdrawal of you from the physical universe while still
remaining in it and with no place to go.

And when you get a case that's bad off, you ask him to get
out of his head or do something and now flinch. He's liable
to look at you very puzzledly and say, "But I haven't got
any place to flinch to." Now, when that occurs, why, you
simply have the fellow who has just run out of spots to go
to that are safe. Safe spots don't exist anymore.

The unalterable points in the universes are not the objects
in the universes but the spots where something happened.
And if you go on the basis that it's just one space - which
it isn't - but if you go on the basis that it's just one
space then you have an unalterable arbitrary. You have
spots you must avoid.

Now, let's see if this holds true in life. Yes, it does.
You find out that an individual who's had bad luck in a
town tends not to go back to that town. An individual who
has had an accident is liable not to go back to the scene
of the accident or is liable obsessively to go back to the
scene of the accident.

There we get the other factor. When you get two objects
colliding... If you've gotten to this point, you see,
you're in agreement with Newton's three laws of motion. For
every action there's an equal and contrary reaction. So
that a fellow gets so that he wants because he's been hit
by it. He wants it because he's been hit by it.

Theoretically you could punish a body into a tremendous
amount of desire. You could make a body... by pounding a
body with a club, you could make the body crave the club.
By taking a slave and beating him with chains for a long
time you could give him an insatiable craving for chains -
as long as you beat him just the right length of time so 
that you weren't going over the point of where he was kicking
back. You see, first he's rejecting the chain and then he
wants the chain and then he rejects it and then he wants it
and he doesn't want it, then he does want it, he doesn't
want it and doesn't... Why? It's just a matter of
collisions, that's all.

So a fellow could have the terrible feeling that he wanted
all of this space, you see, and he wanted to be on these
spots. Well, this would stick him, it would stick him all
over these spots. "I want these spots." He wants them
because they've hit him. No other sensibility to it than that.

And yet, sensibly, he knows that because he's been hit
there, he'd better not be on these spots, so he doesn't
want anything to do with them. So he's trying to get rid of
them and trying to have them at the same time. In other
words, he gets confused.

Totally a matter of consideration whether your universe is
bigger than the MEST universe or the MEST universe is
bigger than your universe. This is just whether you
consider it is or not. You can run a little drill on a
preclear. Say, "Get the idea now of your universe being
much bigger than the physical universe; the physical
universe inside your universe.

"Okay." he says.

"Now get it so that your universe is much smaller and the
physical universe is much bigger." Oh yeah, he can get
this, just consideration, back and forth.

Well, the uniform consideration is that the physical
universe is very big and very powerful and is very
dangerous. And people walk around and bump into rocks and
bump their shins on stair steps and fall out of trees and
hit the ground and drive cars and hit walls and fall out of
airplanes and get blown up in spaceships and get shot and
shoot people and it's impact, impact, impact, impact, impact.

Well, what is sickness? Sickness is the exhaustion of no
longer wanting anything to do with the force. It's the wave
of "I don't want anything to do with the force." If you ask
an individual to lay aside all the force he had, he of
course would have his whole engram bank, his whole universe
collapse on him. Couldn't do otherwise than collapse,
because it's only force that holds it there.

Force itself derives from the ability to hold two fixed
points in space. Force derives from the ability to hold two
fixed points - hold them apart, keep them separated, impose
distance on them. The ability to have space is the ability
to impose dimension. Space is the viewpoint of dimension.

This is done by postulate. As long as you can say "That is
eight thousand miles from me," and it is, conceptually,
you can impose space. But when you get somebody who says,
"This mock-up is now eight thousand... going to be eight
thousand miles from me. It's now eight thousand miles from
me" and pang, it hits him in the face. He is no longer able
to impose points. So force is a junior thing to the ability
to impose distance. If you can impose distance you can
certainly impose force.

Well, an individual gets hit on lots of spots, so he
doesn't want anything to do with spots, so he doesn't have
any force anymore. He doesn't want to have anything to do
with distances anymore. Distance is something that is
horrible to him. Distance is a barrier he can't surmount.
Impacts are awaiting him everywhere. If impacts are
awaiting him everywhere he doesn't want to have anything to
do with anywhere. Well, if he doesn't want to have
anything to do with anywhere, the whole bank will collapse
in on him.

And whether or not you call it moral courage or bravery or
physical courage or strength or the ability to develop
volts and electrons or what you call it - it doesn't matter
what you call it; it all boils down to a couple of points
in space. And if you've got these two points in space, and
you can keep them apart, why, that's good. If you can keep
them apart or pull them together at will, that's good. If
they're staying apart or going together on another
determinism, that's not good. That means you've got no
force. See that?

So it boils down in essence to a problem of agreements. But
what are these agreements? They are the agreements which
have wound up in a complexity of universes, which are all
interlocked by having incidents in common. They have points
of collision in common. Your universe has points of
collision in common with the physical universe, so that you
hardly recognize it as your universe at all anymore. It's
sort of a map of the physical universe - a map of collisions,
impacts. Your body is disturbed continually by restimulated
impacts. Its thinkingness, if it thinks at all, is
monitored by the memory of having been hit by a certain
action. A man is as well off as his goals and dreams are
intact. If a man can dream, if a man can have goals, he can
be happy and he can be alive. If he has no goals he doesn't
even have a future.

A person believes, when running into a game called MEST
universe, consisting of barriers, when he believes that
all of his own actions are dependent upon the MEST
universe, he thinks that any action he takes is going to be
barriered. He thinks he's going to be stopped in everything
he does. If he were to say, "Well, I think I'm going to be
a painter" - If he just thought that he would probably get
the idea of some kind of a wall sitting right straight in
front of his face. It's a direction. "To be a painter" is a
direction to go. He so thoroughly agreed with the universe
that he believes that to gain any objective he has to
cross a distance. If he can't cross that distance he can't
have these objectives. So he gets the idea that he can't be
anything. He can't arrive. Why "he can't arrive"? Because
anything he thinks of doing in life is going to be stopped.
Barriers are going to be erected across his path.

He thinks, "I'm going to be a painter," immediately after
that his stimulus-response mechanism says, instantly,
"Well, you know you couldn't be a painter. Your mother
always said..." You know, instantly.

He knows he can't be the best driver in the world. He just
knows this. He knows this and he knows that. What's he
know? Well, that's another kind of knowingness. It's the
knowingness by impact. Certainty by impact as opposed to
certainty by self-confidence. Now, you're trying to take an
individual away from certainty by impact and certainty that
he's going to be hurt; that points in space are going to
impede his way; that he is in a game that is all barriers,
barriers, barriers. You're trying to take him away from
that kind of an idea, separate him out and bring him over
here to a point where he can make a postulate and make the
postulate stick.

And you do that by separating him out of universes, making
him make his own postulates good and making him capable of
determining an action and then bringing the action off. And
any therapy there is, is involved with the problem of
getting a person away from being one of these... Well,
practically an automaton being run by Newton's three laws
of motion and this entanglement of universes. Getting him
away from being subject to the Gods of all the universes he
has inhabited - such as Mama's, Papa's, the physical
universe, doesn't matter - and getting him to a point of
where he can get over here and make up his own mind. That's
all. All he has to do is make up his own mind.

The wrong way to do it is simply say to him, "All you have
to do is make up your own mind." The right way to do it is
to disentangle him and give him a lot of wins. And he'll
win in the end.

(end of lecture)
_


