FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FZ BIBLE 12/30 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 12/30 (tape 12):

Transcript of Taped Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 

5ACC-11 - 5404C13 

Number 12 of "Universes and the War between
Theta and Mest" cassettes.


UNIVERSE: MANIFESTATION

A lecture given on 13 April 1954


I'd like to take up with you, today, the special Data Sheet
of the Advanced Course [See Advanced Course Data Sheet in
the appendix of this volume] and go over once more some of
the manifestations of preclears, processing.

You understand that SOP 8-C just as it is, just as it
appears in Issue 24-G of The Journal of Scientology, is
quite adequate for your book auditor. Remember that the
process given here, which we're now calling Advanced Course
Procedure, is for a very well trained auditor. It requires
judgment, discernment, and it's dealing with the most basic
basics of aberration and, therefore, it can be supposed
that you could get a pc into trouble with this. You sure
can. You sure can.

Let's say, for instance, that we run "Where Mama's universe
is safe" for a short time and our pc starts coming down
with a horrendous somatic - stomach somatic or something of
the sort-and we go on running "Where Mama's universe is..."
some more and some more and some more, and there's no letup
on the somatic. Well, a lot of things could have happened.
Of course, they shouldn't have happened, but they could happen.

All right. Let's take this process in the hands of some
let's-change-it-all-around, run-it-backwards-while-standing-
on-our-head auditor who doesn't know anything about what he's 
doing in the field, and his preclear says to everybody, "Well, 
yes, I had Scientology run on me and it didn't work. It made 
me awful sick, and that was all there is to it."

Well, I know that sounds snide and uncharitable, but it
happens about twenty-four hours a day, the length and
breadth of the land. Somebody comes along, gets a wild
idea, runs it on some pc, makes him real sick, and says,
"This is Scientology." Well, the hell it is. It isn't.
Scientology is a process for bringing up the knowingness
level of individuals and making them well. Scientology
consists of processes which defeat the one thing which man
has never defeated up to this time, and that's insanity
and aberration.

All right. If the processes which are used are not those
processes which have been codified, tested, and which are
recognized as Scientology, then it isn't Scientology the
fellow's running. It's experimental Scientology, and we
should say so. If he's going to run something weird and
incredible or very short of his understanding, he should
tell the preclear. He should be honest enough to tell the
preclear, "This is just very experimental. This is
para-Scientology - very experimental." And so when we get
into "Where things are safe," things like that,
long-running process, brings up people to levels that you
never saw people brought to before; at the same time, run
wrong it can make a preclear ill. Now, let's not skip that
one. You can start running it in such a way - such a sloppy
way - that it will reduce a preclear's havingness down to
zero. Well, this is very, very hard on a preclear who can't
have anything in the first place. You run his havingness
down to zero and sort of throw him out the window and say,
"Well, huh, Scientology didn't work on that one." The
auditor didn't work!

So that's why Advanced Course Procedure is Advanced Course
Procedure, and why SOP 8-C is 8-C. Can't get in much
trouble with 8-C. Of course you can, with 8-C, reduce
somebody's havingness too, but not to the tremendous
degree that you can with this.

You see, what could happen here, with running this type of
procedure, is that you take some individual who is not even
vaguely ready to have anything rough run on him - he's still
groping around, he's not a "What wall?" case, or a "What
universe?" case even... We had to invent a new case with
the last Unit. There were so many people from Los Angeles
here, we had to call it a "What fog?" case. But these
individuals who are groping are not ready to have a
desperate procedure run on them, really. They're not.
They're fumbling around and stumbling around and falling
on their faces. You try to give them a little command, like
- well, you say, "Let's remember something real," if you
used that on them. You'd say, "All right, now let's see if
we can recall something real."

Fifteen minutes later, the guy's still fishing. You're
going to run something tough like Universe Processing on
him? Well, I'll tell you, his havingness is down to
practically nothing already. And you just ask him to locate
a couple of objects someplace and away he goes. He just
feels nnnaah. He'll get sick at his stomach. He'll feel
very, very, very upset indeed.

In the first place, when you say, "Let's find a couple of
places where your mother is safe," he probably finds a
couple of places where he wishes his mother was dead. You
see, if it took him three minutes, two minutes or even
twenty seconds to remember something real, he is not in
good enough communication to be able to interpret and
follow your auditing command. You see that? I mean, here's
the most obvious thing in the world. If a fellow has got a
tremendously long communication lag, his ingoing
communication is just as long as his outgoing communication
because it's going more or less on the same route. His
reaction time would act something like this: he'd be
driving down the road and somebody would say to him, "Look
out for that truck!" "What truc..." Crash!

Now, people run along on the shallow patter of
civilization. Somebody comes along - "How are you?" "I'm
fine." So forth. They've got a bunch of very pat, short
circuits. You see, they work. Somebody says, "Come to
dinner" and something like that - they come in to dinner.
They go back and forth. In other words, they do the routine
things.

But the second that they get something which requires in
itself an individualized interpretation, their
communication lag is right there. Up to that time they're
just operating as a civilized machine. That's all. They
might as well have wires and coils on them. Somebody says
hello to them on the street, they say hello. Somebody says,
"That will be two dollars," they pay two dollars. 

It's the most shocking thing in the world to get somebody
who's fairly well upscale and say, "All right, now let's
find somebody whose opinion of you you'd like to change."

"Oh, I couldn't do that. It'd interfere with his self-determinism."

And you say, "All right. Be his self-determinism."

And the fellow looks at you blankly and says, "What
self-determinism?" 

In largest measure in this society, we go around
wonderfully safeguarding the sanity and reaction of
machines. The guy is hardly there at all. All right. You
take one of these cases and you start to run a process
which requires interpretation, and we get immediate
trouble because he isn't interpreting what you're saying
at all.

Now, you have to be clever enough as an auditor (1) to
recognize a communication lag when you see one, (2)
realize that that means that the incapability of
interpretation is very great, and (3) to know what process
to apply at that moment.

The process to apply at that moment is probably something
on the order... They're very simple processes. That's why
everybody ignores them and overlooks them. It takes a
simple process to resolve a complicated case. That is the
little backwards factor in all auditing. You know, you
don't take a screaming psychotic and give him an
electric-shock and have him get well. Even the psychiatrist
knows that if people were never electric-shocked in
sanitariums, they would get out of the sanitarium, on the
average, three weeks earlier. You know, the psychiatrists 
will sit right in their buckets of blood there, and tell 
you, "Oh, yes, if we didn't electric-shock anybody, everybody 
would get out of here sooner."

You say, "Why do you electric-shock somebody?" "Well,
that's what you're supposed to do."

"Who said you were supposed to do it?" 

"Well, do you know that if you didn't electric-shock them you 
could be tried for malpractice?"

"What do you mean? You mean, it doesn't do any good
though?" 

"Well, no. Keeps them from being so frantic."

You're dealing with the same kind of reasoning that you're
dealing with on your worse-off preclears. Your preclears
who are stumbling around have got everything identified
with everything. They're actually incapable of free reason.
They're identifing everything with everything. You ask them
something reasonable, you ask them to make a determination
that is reasonable, and oh, no! It's impossible. They
identify this with that with something else.

Now, what is the basic mechanism of this? Well, we run into
that over here when we go into Beinguess Processing. Now,
Beingness Processing is something which is very easy to run
on somebody who's exteriorized, and is very, very, very
rough on a case that is still interiorized. And you get
somebody into one of these beingnesses (something he's
being compulsively, obsessively) and, boy, if you ever saw
identified thinking - glog! Let's ask him what he can be,
and the first thing you know we find out that he can be a
hat. And at this moment anything that sounds like reason to
you shuts down. That's because everything is identified
with everything else.

Well, sanity is differentiation, the ability to
differentiate. The better a person can differentiate, the
more rational, the saner, the more able, the more capable
of motion he is. The better he can differentiate, the
better off he is. The more he identifies, the worse off he
is. So, identification is down toward solid matter. And as
far as differentiation is concerned in space, it is up
toward nice, clear, open space. It's just as simple as that.

So we get somebody down toward a hard object and - he does;
you'll just see him do this very trick. This is the most
phenomenal thing in the world that we could just reach into
somebody's head and demonstrate all categories of
thinkingness. We can. We demonstrate to him, for instance,
that while he is being a heavy piece of energy he, of
course, is not thinking well. This is obvious to him. And
yet all of his life he has been hounding himself to get
along the line - he wants to be a capitalist or he wants to
be something, he wants to arrive, he's got to arrive,
compulsively. Yet he doesn't dare arrive, because if he
arrived at any moment he would find himself being one of
these heavy pieces of energy of one kind or another and he
would, of course, be as stupid as they come.

Here is your contest on people who are having a hard time,
who are doing a lot of figure-figure-figure. They're
trying to become something. They know they have to become
something so they can be identified. And they're trying to
become this thing, and while they're busily becoming this
thing they know very well they'd better not become
anything. So they finally fall into a sort of an in-between
category where they keep saying they're going to arrive and
they never arrive at all.

And this, actually, is a thinking-machine at work. A
thinking-machine performs on this basis. It says, "Here are
all the points we've got to arrive and all the reasons we
mustn't arrive there." And that's all a thinking-machine is
doing. It's "Look at all the past consequences: Every time
I became something, oh brother, this was horrible. So
therefore, I better not become anything. So the way I don't
become anything is to figure-figure-figure." And yet, all
the time he seems to be figuring on how he must become
something. But this, you see, is an inverse thought
process. He becomes inverted. He's been so afraid of
becoming something for so long that now it reverses on him
on a stuck-flow basis and he obsessively has to become
something.

Anytime you try to process a very famous person or one who
has succeeded very well in this universe, you run into
this trouble. The individual for a long, long time dared
not become anything. Well, that was bad enough. But now the
flow has switched on him and he has to become something. A
fellow has to be something important or something massive
in the ratio that he is not dangerous to his environment.

The environment says, "Look, you're not dangerous to me."

And so he swells up, he gets heavy, he gets massy, he gets
thick, and he says, "Yes, I am too. I am something. Look!"
What a stupid trick.

Then the environment hauls off and really clouts him one.
That's the trick of the MEST universe. It gets somebody to
appear and then makes them try like the devil to withdraw.
And it's just an appear-withdraw cycle.

You'll find many of your preclears withdrawing. You'll find
many of them appearing. You know? You'll find people going
around, they'll - if you're in a room with TV on, something
like that - they'll go and stand in front of the television
screen. You know, everybody else is trying to see the
television screen and they're standing in front of it. And
you finally have to point this out to them. They'll move
slightly sideways. What are they doing? They're saying,
"I'm there." "I'm there" - they're trying to appear in the
universe. They're compulsively trying to appear. They'll do
all sorts of things. For instance, they'll go down and run
into your car or something like that. That sure says
they're there. They'll drop things of yours and make large
clatters and noises. Actually, little kids get obsessed
this way. People start shoving them away and shoving them
away, and finally the little kid has got to break things
and scream and holler and do all sorts of things. All he's
doing is saying, "I'm there. I'm there. I'm there."

Well, the manifestation of grief and apathy and so
forth - fear, grief, apathy - that's an effort to get away,
withdraw, disappear. Now you'll find somebody else who is a
self-effacing person and everybody at the table has been
served except one - this self-effacing person. And they
just neglected to pass anything to this person. Actually,
this person very often would sit there for a long time
before they would offer any remark that would point out the
fact that they hadn't been fed. They are always trying to
wipe themselves out of the scene. In their worst state,
very often you'll hear them say such things as "Oh, I know
everybody hates me. And I'm sorry I'm alive. Forgive me for
living" - this kind of a mock-up. It's just a manifestation
of trying to withdraw, once having appeared, you see. You
have to have appeared before you withdraw.

All right. Let's look at this manifestation. We find out
that having appeared, they try to withdraw - they get into
solid objects. This is easy as that. They try to withdraw,
they're condensing attention. All there is there to do
anything with is attention, and when they try to withdraw
they condense attention. And they get pretty doggone dense.
You also get stupid. Now, an individual trying to look is
actually trying to get space, and an individual trying not
to look is, accidentally - he doesn't realize it - but he's
running into solid objects. So we get this manifestation
continually.

All right. You start to process some very, very thin,
spindly, retiring selfeffacive preclear, and you try to
get him to put forward one doggone thing. Release? If he's
trying to withdraw all the time, how can he give up
anything? He doesn't want all these things he's holding on
to - that's why he's stuck to them. And so he's trying to
give up these various items. You try to get him to give up
an aberration. He can't. He's withdrawing so hard, he's
withdrawing and trying to disappear so hard, that he's
pulling everything in with him. And you say, "Give up one
lock." How can he do that? He can't. It's stuck right there.

Actually, all you have to know about psychoanalysis is
psychoanalysis was the effort to get an individual to
release one concept or aberration, at least. That was the
whole goal really: just get him to release something.
That's it. Now, they rarely succeeded because they just
went on pointing out faults, faults, faults until their
patient withdrew, withdrew, withdrew, withdrew, and when
they got him down to complete, solid apathy, why, then they
could make him write out the rest of his bank account, and
that was all there was to it.

Where we have a problem in inability to give up, we have a
problem in withdraw - somebody's withdrawing too hard. And
somebody's getting more dense; they're getting thicker,
more compact and so on. Well, of course, there are many
cycles of this. As a person tries to appear, he just gets
ahold of a lot of objects and slaps them together and he is
the object. And then he tries to get out of being the
object and he makes it more dense, which is quite
heartbreaking to somebody.

All right. We get this preclear; we find out, then, that
he's actually, by the time he's done this, he's getting
more stupid all the time. And we try to get him to get one
lock! You work on him; you work on him hard. You say, "Now,
look-a-here, let's see if we can't remember a time when
your mother said something derogatory to you." Let's say
we're just straightwiring him, old style. He can remember
those times. But, do you know, not a darn thing happens to
the memory. It doesn't blow. It doesn't relieve. He could
remember it hour after hour after hour and nothing would
happen to it. Now, this is your extreme case.

A light lock - it won't relieve. Why won't it? Because he
knows he can't get rid of anything. He hasn't enough space,
you might say, to throw anything into.

Well, what would be the answer to this person? Well, let's
test such a person. Let's go out and find such a person and
discover how he reacts with a light technique. Not Universe
Processing - this is too tough for him. He, of course, can't
release any of these spots. Let's remember that if he has a
long communication lag, he needs a light technique. And the
longer the lag, the lighter the process. It's just an
inversion: the longer the communication lag, the more he is
out of touch with existence, why, the lighter the process
it's going to take to get him back there. Of course, that
tells you, of course, it's going to take more time, because
you're using very light processes. So what? You'll find out
that the fastest method of doing it follows that formula:
the worse the case the lighter the process. And you'll
actually save time by doing it.

You see, you could use desperate measures on him for five
years without ever achieving any kind of relief But you
could use light measures on him for maybe five hours. And
if they were light enough you would actually have entered
the case and have done something for the case.

Now, let's take a look at this case and find out if there's
anything to this condensation factor, you know, withdrawing
from the world and the space factor of expanding into the
world. Are there anything about these two things? Yes, we
find this person who's withdrawing, who's getting more
dense and so forth, is actually getting more stupid. We can
just examine that - the longer the communication lag, the
less the IQ.

This person is in a thinking machine, they
figure-figure-figure, they do all sorts of things - no
action; it's all figure. And the figure always ends up to
failure, one way or the other. You find these people doing
quite irrational things when they get really bad off into
this category. Well, our processes here say that that
person must be out of space - it's possible he doesn't have
any space.

All right, let's look this over and see if that's true. And
let's take Opening Procedure and let's tell this person to
locate a spot in space. We'd get an argument. He doesn't
look up and find something like halfway between these two
chairs or find something in the middle of the room or a
spot up next to the ceiling. Oh, no. The second he puts his
attention on any kind of space, it goes over onto an
object, bop. And this person will argue with you. Why do
they argue with you? Because every time you try to put
their attention on space, it starts up their thinking
machine. That's the automatic way of starting a thinking
machine. Put the person's attention on space - bang! - in 
goes the thinking machine, because it's the handiest object 
to the thetan. Attention on emptiness - their attention goes
to something. When you try to put their attention on
nothing, their attention goes to something.

So we have this person walking around. We actually could
have... Sometimes a case like this rather... breaks up
rather easily with this Opening Procedure process. We take
somebody; he starts locating these things. He has an awful
time at first and finally gets better. He may, you know,
not let on to you that he's having an awful time; you just
sort of have to look at this. And you find out he's better
and better at this. After a half an hour of it he can spot
places in space.

Well, fine if he can spot places in space, now we could
find out where some viewpoints would be safe. But if we
didn't bridge that step of getting him to locate spots in
space, we wouldn't do a doggone thing for the preclear.
Quite on the contrary, we would probably wind up by plowing
him in and make him sicker than a dog. Now, all of your
mechanisms of avoidance - and this is without exception; this
is one of those blanket things - all of your mechanisms of
avoidance are a simple manifestation of you try to put the
person's attention on emptiness and their attention goes
over onto somethingness. So they don't spot a spot in
space, they spot a condition. You say, "Where would your
mother be safe?" 

Supposing you got real careless as an auditor. Supposing 
you just let it all go to hell. And you sat down to audit 
somebody; you didn't know what their communication lag was; 
you hadn't examined them at all, investigated them; you 
didn't try to establish any kind of talk with them, 
communicate with them. You just started in; you just 
bullheadedly said, "Well, we're just going to plow on 
through with this case." And you said, "Well, give me
some places where your mother's safe." Your pat answer is,
of course, "Well, my mother would be safe anywhere where my
father were guarding her." That's the most obvious
manifestation in the world. What did you do? You told him
to put his attention on a spatial spot - "Where would your
mother be safe?" - and, of course, he went immediately onto
a thinking machine, which gave him a condition. That just
told you instantly this fellow can't spot spots in space.

So what would we do with him? We'd run Opening Procedure.
If you kept on trying to get him to spot spots in space, I
tell you you could sit there probably for ten hours just
making the preclear worse. Because he's figure-figure-figure-
figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. And when you get all through
figure-figure-figure-figure-figure, you've probaly moved
his position in his thinking machine and you've gotten down
here prematurely into the fourth step, Beingness
Processing. And you've gotten him to be even more solid
objects than he was being before. Every time you said,
"Find a spot," he went into a solider object. You said,
"Find a spot," he became a solider object. "Find a spot."
And if you were examining him closely you would find out
that he was being garbage cans and stoves and chimneys, and
he was being anything solid he could think of. He was just
snapping through this thinking machine, one right after the
other, finding all these spots and positions where he had
become things or where things, you might say, had won in
the race for survival. And he just keeps flicking through
the machine. You're not doing anything for him there.

But supposing we went at it the right way. And we said to
this individual ... You know, we didn't make any
preparation, we were careless that day. And we said to him,
"Where would your mother be safe?"

"Well, she'd be safe anywhere where my father..."

You say, "Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha, here's a condition!" Okay. Right
there, you'd use some Opening Procedure. Or you'd have him
locate at least some objects in the room and then see if
you couldn't get him to locate some spots in space in the
room. You'd find out that would be quite a struggle there
for a few minutes. And when he's finally able to do that,
he says, "Look, space doesn't bite. I can move out into it.
I can get it more expansive." And only until he learns that
space doesn't bite will he release a lock, because he will
only then have space to release a lock into. He can't throw
anything away; there's no place to throw anything. It's
like somebody in a New York apartment.

Now, where's our percentage with auditing, then, a preclear
on heavy processes? Well, it just isn't any percentage at
all; it's a complete liability. The worst that would
happen, of course, is that you would make him desperately
ill, possibly ill enough to send him to a hospital. And the
least that would happen was that your case would just
remain bogged. There are tremendous - actually tremendous -
lots of data to back up what I'm telling you. I'm not just
talking out of thin air.

All right. Let's supposing you didn't straighten out the
fellow's communication lines at all. He had a long
communication lag and somehow or other you were sleepy that
day and you didn't detect it and you didn't notice that he
had a long lag. After all, you'd been auditing him maybe
for two or three days and he hadn't had a long lag for two
or three days. And today, of course, he wouldn't have a
long lag either, would he? Oh-oh! Well, he could have sort
of slipped on a mental banana peel sometime since the last
time you saw him and have landed straight into one of these
beingness spots. You know? Heavy mass. And his
communication lag was very good the last session you gave
him. Oh, he was doing fine. And you didn't happen to notice
that he had about a fifteen minute lag when he reported to you.

All right. We say to this person, "Give me a place where
your mother would be safe."

He thinks to himself, "Grrrr, I wish the old crock were
dead, or something of the sort. Well, let's see.
Grrr-grrr. She'd be good and dead there. She'd be good and
dead there. She'd be good and dead there. Oh, I'm not
feeling well." Only, he didn't tell you he was doing this.

Anytime you get a communication lag, you get a
communication perversion. Did you know that? Anytime you
get a communication lag, you get a communication
perversion. It's going through too many lines. The reason
he has a communication lag is because he can't duplicate.
If he can't duplicate, naturally, anything that gets
through the line at all is going to come out differently.
So when you give him an auditing command, he does something
else. I mean, it's just open and shut. Fellow has a fifteen
second communication lag, you give him an auditing
command, it's a lead-pipe cinch he's going to do something
else. He's going to think he's doing, too, what you said,
which is the cute part of it. He's sitting there, he knows
he's being so obedient, he knows he's doing just exactly
what you said. But you didn't say what he heard. See the
liability there?

And again we come out onto this basis of space. Space is a
viewpoint of dimension. You don't have any space unless you
got a viewpoint.

All right. Let's take this case that's very, very occluded.
Why is he occluded? He hasn't got any space. Why hasn't he
got any space? Well, it's because he doesn't have a
viewpoint of dimension. Well, why is this? And let's get
into the very, very deep, supersignificant part of all this
right now, huh? He is unwilling to have so many viewpoints
in so many places that he has given up his own. He's
sitting there setting an example of no viewpoint to try to
blind everybody else. One of the things he's doing. But he
so thoroughly objects to having so many viewpoints that
he's herded himself back and corralled himself into blackness.

Now, I'm sorry if that touches somebody's toes; just shift
your foot a little bit. But the truth of the matter is
there's nothing vicious about this; this fellow may have
had a lot of things happen to him. Here's the mechanical
action: He's down the street... he's walking down the
street. It's a nice day. He feels perfectly okay. And he
goes around the corner and he sees a little kid who is just
off the curb and somebody comes along - California driver - 
comes along, runs over the little kid, crushes his
head in; there's blood and brains all over the place. He
gets a sudden feeling of complete unreality. That's his
immediate reaction - frozen horror and then complete
unreality. He's trying to run on the postulate "It didn't
happen. Time is back there." That's the first thing he's
trying to do. But the actual action is, he's trying to
withdraw his attention from it. He has to, because there
was the driver of the car - he doesn't want that viewpoint.
There's the little kid - he sure doesn't want that viewpoint.
And yet that sort of thing can happen in this society. All
right, what's the answer? There's two viewpoints he doesn't
want. Now, let's take seventy-six trillion years' worth.
How many viewpoints doesn't he want? "Well," you say very
practically, "now look, we can get right straight at the
truth of this thing, and we can just run on down the line
as nice as you please. And all we'll do... all we'll have
to do here is run a process, which runs like this: All
right, now give me some viewpoints you don't want.'" That
doesn't happen to be the truth. The truth is he wants every
viewpoint he has. It happens to be an aberrated solution.
And that is the aberrated solution: "I don't want that
viewpoint."

All the errors on the line, if added up and put together
and cataloged, possibly could make an awful lot of books.
But let's find out what the primary error is. You could
say the primary error was to make some space in the first
place. But aside from that, the real primary error, the
entrance point, the threshold into what we call
aberration... That could be insanity, neurosis, inability
to think fast, inability to paint although you want to.
Aberration: the blocking of goals, the impotence of
existence - what would the threshold be? It would be right
there: "I don't want that or those viewpoints. I don't want
that viewpoint." That's the threshold of it. Because
immediately, there goes the guy's space. When his space
goes, there goes his differentiation. Just for a moment
his space went. Well, it's just for a moment, and now it's
in a picture. How does he get the picture in the first place?

Well, the picture is inverted. You see, it would be awfully
dull if you went along all these years looking at pictures,
so sooner or later you began to withdraw your attention
from the pictures. Well, in view of the fact that you were
putting the pictures there, your effort to withdraw -
energywise - your attention from the pictures, of course,
condensed them and brought them right in on you. All you
had to do was decide to withdraw from any view and you
brought the view in on you. That's all there was to that.

So as an individual gives up, doesn't want, refuses to
have, negates against viewpoints, so, he runs out of space.
Because the mechanical action of space in the first place
is simply a viewpoint of dimension. And that is space and
there isn't any other space than that. And so we get the
problem of when he doesn't want these viewpoints,
naturally, he has struck at the reason there is space. You
got how grim that is? He says, "I don't want that
viewpoint. I want to see everything look pretty out
that-a-way over there. I don't want those viewpoints over
that way." As soon as he starts to object to a lot of these
viewpoints, why, he's in trouble. Well, if we tried to run
this process on this basis - "Give me some viewpoints you
don't want" - you find your preclear would make tremendous
progress for minutes. Boy, he would be right in there
chewing, pang-pang-pang, pang, pang, pang - thud! And he hits
the thud because it isn't true. 'Viewpoints you don't
want" - you have asked him to take a second echelon, the
second echelon. You've assumed that the viewpoint existed
and then that it was to be negated against. And that is the
very action which the MEST universe undertakes to trap
somebody.

By asking him viewpoints he didn't want, you then ask him a
lie. In the first place, the viewpoints didn't exist for
him unless he postulated their existence. Viewpoints he
didn't want - well, why don't you say, postulates you don't
want. It's just as thoroughly short-circuited as that. So
you can sometime - just to demonstrate it to yourself - run
that process that way on somebody. Get somebody you don't
like - get a psychiatrist. And say, "Give me some viewpoints
you don't want." And just start running those and running
those and running those.

And, you know, he'll really see some truth in what you're
saying. He'll really see that you've really gotten there,
and then he'll go home and get sick - or he'll get sick right
there. He's liable to chuck his cookies. You've just asked
him to collapse everything on him, that's all. Viewpoints
he doesn't want - he has to keep postulating, "I don't want
that viewpoint. I don't want that viewpoint. I don't want
that viewpoint," and he'll suddenly run out of space. It's
just as elementary as that. You've asked the guy to make
the postulates which will put him at the bottom of the
barrel. And he, of course, obligingly makes the postulate.

Now, of course, "Where would your mother be safe?" - the
truth of the matter is, it's perfectly fine for your mother
to be safe. That's perfectly all right. You could have the
whole universe on the whole track in all particular
directions perfectly safe, and you could be as happy as a
clam. In other words, it isn't necessarily true that you
have to make everything on the track vanish in order to
survive. You see, that's an aberrated solution. Everything
could exist, everything could survive and so forth, and you
could survive too. And the ordinary operation is that an
individual gets so mad at so many things on the track that
he decides so many of these things mustn't survive that he
has completely lost touch with the idea that some of them
might possibly, by some stretch of the imagination, be
permitted to survive without completely caving him in.
Well, whenever we get into... whenever we get into a
completely aberrated statement which we're asking a person
to make over and over and over as a postulate, why, of
course we get dire results in a preclear.

There's a little axiom that goes with this: A process is as
good as it approximates actual truth. It's as good as it
approximates truth. Truth of the matter is, everything can
survive. When we run an individual along the line, then we
find out this is safe, that's safe - boy, for a while there
he's wild-eyed about this and that. And finally he said,
"Well, what happens? Does Mother disappear?" Does it
finally come true that she dies in her tracks the way he
wants her to during one period of the process? No, no,
she's just going on happily, and he finally... Her
universe is over there, his is over here, and so what! He's
happy. Doesn't influence him particularly. He's perfectly
comfortable about this situation. And for the first time
he can relax, and he can like somebody. Or he says, "Well,
what do you know! Something else can survive besides myself
and I can be perfectly cheerful about it."

You remember this computation I was talking about in the
PABs? And by the way, if you don't have the PABs, you ought
to amongst you get what copies you do have and look over
them because there's a lot of very valuable material in
them which leads up to this type of processing. There's a
lot of tricks in them. But here's the "only one." This guy
who's the "only one" has been withdrawing from view,
withdrawing from view, and then he decides hell appear
again. Of course, when he appears again, he's withdrawn
from all viewpoints. When he appears again, why, he says,
"I'd better be the only one." And after a while, why, he
becomes the "only one."

In other words, "Nothing can survive but myself." Well now,
look, on a communication basis what can this fellow
communicate with? He can't. Because everything else must
not survive and he must survive. Well, just on that we
don't get a duplication. And if we get no duplication on
this, we'll get no communication, so he goes out of
communication with the rest of the universe. Sure, he can
be the "only one" - a rock down at the crossroads. Nobody
ever notices it. No advantage in it whatsoever.

Remember there are eight dynamics. There isn't just one.
The way the thing collapses is the person withdraws from
the outer periphery of spaces to which he's acclimated. He
withdraws and he finally gets down to the point where "only
one" can survive. Well, you start asking him "Other
viewpoints you don't want"; you start asking him, "Well,
give me some places where your mother would not be
safe" - you're just paralleling this "only one" computation.
You're just asking and inviting the fellow to wind up as
the "only one" on the track. And, of course, in the process
of becoming that he will get sicker than a pup.

The only reason any universe is here at all anyhow is
because somebody is looking at it. So why not let somebody
else look at it and keep the space stretched, huh? Now,
that sounds very elementary and highly theoretical and so
forth. But the best test of such a thing is, is space a
viewpoint of dimension? Does this work dynamite? Yeah,
just get somebody, as I said - a psychiatrist or somebody -
and run this on him for a short time. "Viewpoints you don't
want."

Oh, he'll get happy about it, he'll have somatics, and
finally he'll wind up with his field completely black,
utterly occluded, out of touch. And as far as his body is
concerned, it is so entirely dependent on other viewpoints
than its own, just to keep space there, that it'll be real
sick. So does anyone on the route toward "only one."

But how do you make an "only one"? Viewpoints he doesn't
want. "I want to be the only viewpoint of space."

What? You mean you want to be the only fellow who's holding
the MEST universe out there, corner by corner? You want to
do it all by yourself? Well, go ahead. You can. I'm sure
you can. Dull, though. Now, we ask somebody, "Where are
viewpoints safe?" Mm. This is a different question. You
see, we're not strictly dealing with a dichotomy here. Get
this out of your mind if you had it there. That's not
strictly a plus and a minus. One is fact and the other is
fancy. Which is fact? Viewpoints and things safe - that's
fact. And viewpoints and things not safe - that's fancy. When
you got those two things uncrossed, why, you're in fine
shape. But it's not a dichotomy. Just, one happens to be
true (that things are safe and do survive), and the other
(that they don't) is utterly false. And you're up so close
to the threshold of processing aberration itself that, of
course, you'd better pay some attention to the truth of
the case.

Now, you can actually make people sick by processing this
wrong. The only way you'd process it wrong would be to
process it in the direction where there would be less
space. When you say "Viewpoints you don't want," you're
immediately saying less space, less space, less space, less
space, less space, less space, here we go.

You see, we just process it the other way - space is safe,
space is safe, space is safe, more space, more space, more
space, more space, more space, more space. We should
understand that as the highest level of action in the mind:
if it has a viewpoint, it's got space; and if it doesn't
have a viewpoint, it doesn't have space. And when it
negates against certain viewpoints and doesn't want them
anymore, it doesn't have that space.

Now, there's many a preclear walking around without any
front to his face. Or if he does have a front to his face,
it isn't his. And that's because Mama has stood there in
front of him and Papa has stood there in front of him, and
the boss and the general and the privates and other senior
people. And they've said, "We don't like this viewpoint."
Well, of course, he missed the boat. The proper answer in
that case is "Well, what you standing there for then?"
Obvious rebuttal.

But instead of that, why, he took exception to this, and he
says, "I don't want that viewpoint. I don't want that
viewpoint. I don't want that viewpoint." To what? To the
front of his own face! A point out here about four feet
from his face - and he's saying, "I don't want that space.
I don't want that space." Pretty soon he hasn't got any.
See, he said there must be no viewpoint out in front of
that. That's the continuous postulate which he's made all
the way along the line: "There must be no viewpoint out in
front of my face. Mama's viewpoint must not be in front of
my face. Papa's viewpoint mustn't be."

And do you know what the end product is? The preclear
himself flies out on an inversion and is two or three feet
in front of his face. He's "running" the body from a point
in advance of his own face. He has resisted it so hard that
it's finally inverted, and the lines he used for resistance
actually pulled him into the position. He set up space
there that one mustn't have, and it became such forbidden
space that he finally stepped into it.

"Be very careful," said Simple Simon's mother, "how you
step into the pies." And this fellow was very careful how
he stepped into that viewpoint. Well, when we got a problem
in no space, we have a problem in negated viewpoints. All
right, whose viewpoints was it that were negated against?
Well, the E-Meter is a happy one on that - tell you right
away. It will actually tell you a lot faster than the
preclear can.

Here's a little experience on that. Had a preclear; he was
doing very fine. Doing swell. We weren't using an E-Meter.
And all of a sudden his case took a tremendous bog - just
over a period of about five minutes. So I went and dragged
out an E-Meter, put him on it, and you know what I... I'd
been processing the wrong universe. All other universes
stemmed from this other universe. Well now, he never
mentioned it. But the E-Meter went into the most rigid
stick you ever saw in your life. From any slightest swing
or bop or anything, it utterly froze - you know, a real stuck.

The E-Meter swings widely - that tells you that there's
charge, action and flow and that's very significant. And it
sticks. You want to get accustomed to looking at a real
stuck meter. A real stuck meter - if you practically slapped
the preclear, the needle wouldn't move. I mean, they're so
busily engrossed in thinking about some incident in which
they're stuck, that the needle is just stuck, that's all.
Those two manifestations you look for.

Well, here's this terrifically stuck thing, and what have
we been doing? We've been trimming around the edges of a
solid mass. All we've been doing is taking these things
off. The guy had utterly forgotten, completely forgotten,
that when he was eighteen he'd gotten married and he'd been
married for two years. This girl was gone! His first
marriage, according to him, had taken place when he was
twenty-five.

Aw, this was a real rough one, see. I mean this character
had just disappeared from view. And, of course, the case
wasn't resolving at all, because really that was all that
was wrong with the case - he was just so madly avoiding these
years, so tremendously avoiding that person's viewpoint
that just nothing existed along that line. And that
nothingness was the kind of a nothingness whereby he was
pulling everything in on him. So he was stuck right at that
period and pulling everything else on top of him. And an
E-Meter just simply said so, just like that. Doesn't require
a fancy E-Meter to tell you that: one of those little 53s
with the tone handle and so forth will do just fine;
they're quite light, easy to pack around. And they'll tell
you everything you want to know. They'll stick with the
best of them.

All right. When we have this process, then, Advanced Course
Procedure, we are processing as close to definitions as
possible. This has always been true in the Advanced Course - 
in these Clinical Courses. We process as close to definitions 
as possible. And when we're right on the button with definitions, 
we see that space is a viewpoint of dimension, we of course 
have the basic of any universe. Of any actually created universe, 
the basic is that there must be somebody there to be the 
central viewpoint of it.

Well, whose postulates would hold in that universe? Of
course, the person whose viewpoint it was. That person's
viewpoint would hold. Therefore, we have the god concept.

Now, the other things that are manifest here that aren't
mentioned on this data sheet - down here we see the Know to
Sex Scale is something that you could use for diagnosis and
hasn't been gone into here very thoroughly. Now, here we
have know, look, emote, effort, think, symbols, eating and sex.

Well, you know there's a curious manifestation on these
thinking machines. The mind will flick over from space
into whatever level the person is in. You tell them to look
at space and they will flick immediately into that level on
that condensation scale. See, Know to Sex is a condensation
scale - that's how much more condensed it is. And their mind
will flick over, straight across on that. For instance, you
say, "Look at the space" - the fellow would think of sex.
"Look at the space" - he'd think of eating. Now, that's
theoretical. But since I mentioned this last time, I
conducted a little test on it that seems to hold good.
"Look at the space" - and the fellow goes into that band
where he's stuck.

You say, "Look at the space," and he thinks of working.
He's in the effort band.

"Look at the space" - he gets emotional. He says, "Ah, isn't
that beautiful" or, "Oh, gee." He sighs or something of the
sort. He hits the emotional band.

And you say, "Look at that space," and he looks at that
space. He's in pretty good shape.

And you say, "Look at that space" - he knows all about that
space. And that would be the top level. Now, this is a
scale of condensation - Know to Sex. And the more a person
has withdrawn from existence, why, the more dense you could
say the individual had become, the less space he has and
the further and more he will identify. He gets real stupid
down there toward the bottom.

Now, there's one point, in addition to this, that you must
know about this Data Sheet. And that is over here on
Beingness Processing. Beingness Processing has many uses,
many things can be done with it. It's listed as four here,
on page 3. And we find that you could have a preclear who
wasn't exteriorized be one thing right after another and
actually move him out of - after that - being those things.
You could do him some good with this process.

You see, he isn't being a body; he's being something else
at the same time. But this process is not at this time
intended for somebody who is interiorized. Now, notice it
follows here the third. And it says what you do with the
third is that you keep running Universe Processing and then
SOP 8-C and Universe Processing and SOP 8-C and Universe
Processing until you've got the guy exteriorized. So let's
not confuse this Beingness Processing with an earlier
Beingness Processing where you're still running the guy
interiorized. It's not intended to be run that way in this
Advanced Course Procedure.

The reason it isn't is because the other takes quite a
little time. It's useful, but this other is more
useful - Universe Processing. So the way this is written here
it's intended that after the person is exteriorized, the
first thing you ask him to be are spaces. You see, you've
run 8-C on him; he's already located where he's not, and so
forth. Well, let's just give him a space drill. Now, what
is the patter for that drill? This is, by the way, an old
process. This is a 1st Unit process. It's right there. I
mean, we've been doing it for a long time. He's
exteriorized; he has some certainty where he is. Now we ask
him to be the space of the room, the space of the body, the
space of the building, the space of the room, the space of
the body, the space of the building, the space of the room,
the space of the body, the space of the building. See? And
we ask him to be other spaces, just like that.
Repetitively, quickly, one after the other: "Be the space
of the body, the space of the room, the space around the
room, the space around the building, the space of the
building, the space of the body, the space of the building,
the space of the body, the space of the building, the space
of the body, the space of your own universe, the space of
the MEST universe, the space of somebody else's universe,
the space of your own universe, the space of the MEST
universe, the space of somebody else's universe." And that
one you mustn't omit on that one, because very often a
person's perceptics will turn on like the Great White Way.
Three universes - you ask him to be the spaces of universes
and so forth. You just chase him around doing this.

Now, just for fun, you start asking him to be this and be
that, not in an effort to trap him, you know, to discover
what things he can't be, but just to demonstrate to him
that, look, he's freer than he used to be. He can look at
things because he can duplicate them, he can be them, so
therefore he can communicate with them, so he needn't be
afraid of them. Now, there's a natural process.

And we run back and finally, after we've done a lot of this
other, you see - "Be the space of the room," and so on - if 
at any time while you're running this fourth process ...
This is important because it's not on here. Any time when
you're running this thing, if the fellow starts to fog up
on you or get sticky or something of this sort, just run
some more Step I of 8-C. You know, ask him a lot of places
he's not, some people he's not, where some people are not,
and just sharpen him up a little bit.

And there's another little process that I run on them very
continuously, to sharpen them, while I'm running Beingness
Processing: "Take a look. What do you see? Duplicate it.
Duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and
duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and
duplicate it. Throw it away. All right. Let's find a
nothingness. Duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it
and duplicate it and duplicate it. Throw it away. All
right. Now let's take the room and let's duplicate it and
duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and
duplicate it and duplicate it and throw it away."

This is patter. I mean, this is just the most routine
patter in the world for an auditor who has somebody
exteriorized. There's two things an auditor does
continually. I mean, every once in a while he just throws
it in just for the hell of it; it's a good thing to do. You
know, just a real good thing to do. His preclear is
exteriorized; he's drilling him on something; he's running
him here and there and so forth - just all of a sudden say,
"Okay now, what you looking at? Okay, duplicate it.
Duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and
duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it. Now, all
right, throw those duplicates away. Now find a nothing. Now
duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and
duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and throw it
away. Okay, give me some places where you're not." Those
are the two things you do, see - "Places where you're not,"
"Duplicate it." "Duplicate somethings; duplicate nothings.
Duplicate somethings; duplicate nothings." "Places where
you're not, places where you're not, places where you're
not, places where you're not." Makes him look.

You'll find out that by salting down all of your processing - 
and particularly Beingness Processing - with this
one, why, you get a long way along the line with your
preclear. It sharpens up perception. Perception is, in
essence, a communication. Isn't it? Duplication is the
essence of communication. Well, if it is, you'd better give
him duplication drills. Otherwise his perception will stay
low. You can change the dickens out of somebody's
perception by duplication drills, if he's exteriorized.

Now, if he's still in the body, of course, he's probably
pushing around the body's universe. He's probably making
the body do all these things rather than doing them
himself. So that's the difficulty there. And if he's not
exteriorized yet, you just take this third step up here
and you just run it back and forth - "Things that are safe"
and so forth - until you've got him exteriorized. SOP 8-C.

SOP 8-C, Step I and then some Universe Processing, and Step
I and some Universe Processing, and all of a sudden you
find out the guy isn't progressing so well; take him right
straight back to the first step - try to establish two-way
communication with him again - and then give him some Opening
Procedure with particular attention to spotting places in
space. Now grind on along the line again. Maybe after
you've done that maybe he's exteriorized. Somewhere along
the line he's going to exteriorize. You can't tell quite
where, but if you notice that, that will go into an
exteriorization proposition; the fellow will exteriorize.

"Places where viewpoints are safe" - it will occur to him
many times that he doesn't want viewpoints here and he
doesn't want viewpoints there and so forth. You just ignore
it. You just keep getting places where viewpoints would be
safe.

It's of interest in all of this process to use MEST
universe space. Here's the common agreement ground on all
of these universes. And I give you that caution. I told you
that yesterday; tell it to you again today: try to get that
weight over there on the MEST universe space. Try to get
him looking in MEST universe space, pointing into MEST
universe space, rather than searching around into other
universe spaces. The MEST universe is sort of a crossroad.

And again in Beingness Processing, remember it's being
spaces and being objects - whatever it is - after the person
is exteriorized and you salt that process down with a lot
of "Where are you not?" And you give it, at the same time,
"Duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate."

With those things in view you should have no difficulty
with these processes. The rest of the steps are
self-explanatory. And they're also written up in here.

But no amount of processing or processes will overcome this
one fact: auditor observation. You look at the preclear.
Here in Advanced Course Procedure, we have the most
effective processes that we know. They're good, they're
fast. But they're only as good as the auditor will look at
his preclear. They're no better than that. Because they can
be run out of time, out of phase, in the wrong place. They
could even be run with exactly the right patter but
exactly the wrong time and actually make the preclear quite
upset.

They produce rapid results in the view of how far you're
trying to go with a case. You know, they get such
tremendous distances that you're liable to overlook the
fact that twenty or thirty hours of processing with
Universe Processing is very well invested.

Okay.

(end of lecture)



_


