FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FZ BIBLE 18/30 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 18/30 (tape 19):

Transcript of Taped Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 

5ACC-17 - 5404C21 

Number 19 of "Universes and the War between Theta and 
Mest" cassettes.


ELEMENTS OF AUDITING

A lecture given on 21 April 1954


This is a talk on the elements handled in processing. It
could also be called the elements of existence. Very little
difference, these things. Let's just take a fast rundown on
what these things are.

One is the person himself What are the component parts of
the individual? The field of religion, the field of
physics, the field of biology actually themselves are
efforts of a sort of an "only one" classification to study
a fragment of the individual. Each one is a fragment, and
therefore these things are each one a fragment of the truth.

Let's just look at this, then. Man has divided things into
these categories. He's divided them into the field of the
physical sciences as represented by physics and chemistry.
The life sciences - which really aren't sciences by
definition at all since they do not progress along orderly
axioms - but those life sciences such as biology,
anthropology and so forth.

And then let's look over at the other field and we find out
there's religion, and religion is only one heading, and
the rest of the group could be spiritualism, occultism,
magic - the normal activities of barbaric and civilized
peoples to understand the spirit or soul of man.

Now, if we see that man's knowledge is divided into these
parts then it must follow that man must have some empathy
with each one of these sciences. Is that right? There must
be, then, a component part in man which would compare to
each one of these fields. And we call these fields the
fields of - just let's be very simple about it and call it
religion, biology and physics.

All right. We have, then, three fields. These are each one
representative of a whole family of sciences, and we see
that man does have, then, something in relationship with
each one of' these fields; otherwise he wouldn't be
interested in these fields. Let's get as simple as that.

All right. What is it in man that corresponds, then, to the
field of physics? It would be the material objects which
he uses, handles or associates with. That would be one part
of it, and another part of it would be those energies - raw
physical universe energies - which an individual employs in
order to transport himself in order to communicate, and so
forth. These would essentially be a part of man because
they are the things that man owns. In psychoanalysis this
could have been called, and was never called or so
classified, but could very well have been called the alter
ego - those things which surround the centrality of man - 
his objects, his possessions, the physical energies he uses
and the space in which he exists. All right. That's where
physics comes in.

Now, where does biology come in? Well, this comes in with
the cells, the cells themselves, the organisms which are
built out of cells, the plants, fungus, bacteria, all
these other things with which man is associated, and his
body itself, which of course has in each case a
representative part which is biological. And this part can
be traced on an evolutionary chain - it's been something
else; it's changed into what it is now. And you run out
from this till you find a whole culture of organisms. And
if you merely considered man an organism, you would have a
whole culture which would be a society - like our modern
society here. All right. So that would be another component
part as far as biology is concerned. It would be those
mobile or relatively immobile life forms which man
associates with or is.

All right. What about religion over here though? You
realize religion is the oldest subject that man has
studied. It is very easily the oldest subject with which
man has been associated. Well, if we're going to say, well,
there is no truth in religion - if there isn't any basis to
operate on there at all - we would be saying immediately
there is no grounds for any sympathy in man. In other
words, if we said man does not have a soul, we would then
have to say man is not interested in religion. But of all
the things that man is interested in, religion has been
the most persistent on the whole track. We can trace back
man's interest in religion for forty-five hundred years of
written history. So obviously there's some component part
there. Well, this is very much the case. A man has a spirit
and he is his spirit, and his personality, his thinkingness, 
his aesthetic and so forth is a spirit.

Now, Dianetics would have gone quite a distance if we had
merely been able to reduce engrams and straighten up life
as a form. You should recognize Dianetics as a study of
the biological level of man. This is biology and it's not
much of an excursion into physics, and it's certainly
hardly any excursion at all into man as a spirit. But
there's a wider truth here to be observed, that man is a
soul, he is a spirit. We don't care what words we use here
particularly but it is something which is capable of
creation and destruction, which is capable of the origin of
space and is capable of the origin of energy and matter.
Now, this is observable by test.

Well, what happened in Dianetics? Well, first we'd have to
recognize what's happened to man. Let's take this field
over here of the spirit - the beingness, the central
beingness of a person - and let's take that as one extreme.
And then over on the other side, here, let's take physics,
chemistry - in other words, the material universe, space,
energy and matter and its time, of course - as the physical
side, and call it the extreme physical side. So now we have
the extreme spiritual side, the extreme physical side, and
those two things when combined make the biological group of
knowingness.

Now, man has not looked at himself very well and so he
recognizes in himself a life form, and he tries to
composite out of this life form the idea that a cell is
just a cell. The very, very uninformed physicist - not the
nuclear physicist certainly, but the mere physicist - has
constantly today sought to prove that life arises out of
matter. And he gets no place with these experiments. He
just keeps running up against it. He doesn't get anyplace
at all. He tries to trace a piece of mud and out of this
piece of mud rises a virus and out of that virus rises
another form which we call the very small cell, and that
develops, and eventually we have a life organism. This
theory does not work. It observably doesn't work because
until the advent of Dianetics, man did not have any human
science. He had a lot of things he called human science,
merely because he saw there was a need for them and he
tried to fill in this gap.

But here, by the way, was psychology. That's what
psychology is: it is the study which stems from the fully
physical side of existence and seeks to trace the evolution
of man from mud, really. Because the scientists who have
originated - beginning with Wundt, a German - applying
scientific methodology didn't just apply scientific
methodology; they applied the scientific items of matter,
energy and space and tried to get out of matter, energy and
space the totality which we call beingness.

And as a matter of fact the last textbook - practically the
most recent one issued in the field of psychology - registers
itself as an entire and complete defeat. It says a
definition of psychology is not possible without tracing
its history. Now, that's a fine "Don't look," isn't it? You
can always define something without tracing its history.
Define the United States. Then we say, "Well, we can't
define the United States until we've traced its history."

Now, the second line in the opening book - first line says
that it has no definition; the second line says, "The word
psychology is derived from psyche and logos. And psyche
means 'the spirit' and logos means 'discourse.' But this
word no longer applies because psychology is" - direct
quote - "is not a study of the spirit nor even of the mind."
They just wiped themselves out, in other words.

Psychology is not a study of the mind or spirit. And you
who think that psychology is a study of the mind are trying
to fill man's need for a study of the mind with this word
psychology You see, psychology is not the study of the
spirit or even the mind. It's not a study of the mind and
spirit. It's an experimental application of bric-a-brac to
collect data. Now, don't say, "Data about what?" It just
collects data.

Now, of course, it sought to come out of the field of
philosophy, and it came out of that branch of philosophy
which dedicates itself to the physical sciences. There
isn't any reason to go on with this any further; I'm just
trying to show you that here we had an extreme view. And
the day you get any... well, any physicist who is... You
know, he's just been to the university. He is a physicist.
He has no broader background than that. You will find this
individual pressing forward very hard trying to evolve
every behavior in life out of Newton's laws or some such
thing. And the biologist to some degree followed suit.

But the biologist was closer to it. He was actually
studying the component parts of life which consist of
cells and bodies. And he studied cells and bodies, but he
tried to make this an end-all, and he tries to explain
everything. He says that... Biology, by the way, does not
agree with its parent science, cytology, which is the study
of cells. The primary science is cytology; biology has had
to be popularized so that it would agree with the people
more than cytology does. But cytology lays down the
principle that life is actually an accidental outgrowth of
an unending stream of protoplasm which goes through time
from its earliest moment until now, and that all possible
forms and shapes, sizes and behaviors that life is going to
produce are inherent in that unending line of protoplasm.
They have reduced everything down, you should say, really,
to the... When they mean [say] an unending line of
protoplasm they mean the sperm-ovum trail that goes back
into the dimmest past.

Now, that is cytology, and biology comes out of that and
tries to study the form. Cytology actually studies this
unending line of protoplasm and biology studies the form.
So there is that field. And yet that field was far closer
to anything man could use, certainly, than these offshoots
that were originated out of the field of physics.

Because man does not come out of mud, because mud does not
behave like man, nor does mud contain the potentials which
will make man behave like man behaves. Mud is very, very
easily controlled stuff, and man is not. And the physicist
who goes out and tries to control man with mud - which is
to say he tries to hold him in line with force, shot guns,
shackles, jails and so forth - just produces fiasco after
fiasco in terms of empire. He just gets no place by doing
this and yet he's been demonstrating this for thousands of
years. And by actual experiment in the business of living
we find, then, that the physical picture is not workable.
This total physical picture that says man came from
mud - that's not workable.

We look over here at biology, and in spite of the fact that
we have now had biology, and very good biology, since long
before Pasteur, in spite of the fact that we've had biology
for almost a century in the form which it's now being
taught in high schools - I mean it's that old; it's an old,
old science - we yet have very, very little advance on the
subject of making cells do something predictably. There's
very little advance in that. They just take the inherent
components of what cells do and they can modify it slightly.
They found out that the application of X-rays will mutate -
that is, to change the growth ratio and growth form. They
have found out that you can put certain molds in
combination with certain bacteria and the bacteria will
die. But then, man, that's nothing new; it just happens to
be the fact that the antibiotics, these molds, do not kill
off the whole organism. That's new.

But man has always been able to introduce a small amount of
arsenic into a body and have it die. And actually arsenic
itself is the earliest historical item on the antibiotic list.

Arsenic itself was utilized for many, many hundreds of
years by witches in Europe. The only doctors they had in
Europe were witches. And the witch came into disrepute when
all of Europe turned over to religion. They abandoned
herbs and so forth and went over for the spirit
exclusively. But up to that time they'd been using arsenic
in this way. They'd give an individual enormous numbers of
doses, each dose very tiny. And every day this individual
would take one of these tiny doses of arsenic, and he would
eventually become proof against disease. And one of the
things that made the European culture so suspicious of
witches was a very simple one. They would dig them up, Lord
knows how long later, and find the body of these witches
perfectly preserved. Because these witches were arsenic
eaters and the body would not decay in the grave.

You see what chance a mere bacteria had that floated into
this body which was conditioned with arsenic. Well, they
immediately had - enormous numbers of bacteria were inactive,
then, against the witches. So they could live through
plagues, syphilis - any type of disease of that character.
None of these diseases were effective against these
witches. And arsenic gives a person a rather pleasant color -
gives them pink cheeks and so forth. And they dig up
some witch twenty-five years after they were buried - if 
they dug up the rest of the graveyard they'd find everybody
rotted and dust and a few ragged bones and rather messy -
and here would be these witches perfectly preserved. So they
says, "They must continue to use their bodies after they're
dead. So the only way to kill a witch is to drive a stake
through his chest." And all kinds of nonsense originated in
this line. That was the end of witchcraft. 

Anyway, here was the earliest stages, you might say, of
practical biology. That's practical biology. And today this
same tradition is followed through with such things as
penicillin, Aureomycin, Chloromycetin - about a dozen
specifics which the biochemists have been able to
originate. The biochemist there, you see, is operating
straight in the line of the cell, the organism. And he says
it behaves by certain laws and has to feed in this way and
that way and he traces his way through. But if this was
true, if this was all there was, was this biological
strata, then you would of course expect that every problem
of the organism would have been solved by a biological
approach. If it was a total truth you would have gotten a
total solution. Well, you've got nothing even vaguely
resembling a total solution.

Today penicillin is less and less effective. And they have
to do other things today to make somebody well. And biology
actually is just one jump ahead of the ability of the cell
to proof itself and square itself around. Well, they can
handle everything... everything, then, but the ability of
the cell to defend itself. They can't handle that. Cell
wins sooner or later.

All right. What about religion? Is this a total and an all
where we are concerned?. After all we are a society, and we
have individually and collectively various interests and
so forth. Well, is religion an end answer? Well, certainly
not as practiced. Religion itself has been responsible,
probably, for more deaths - just as itself it's been
responsible for more deaths and more unhappiness than any
other single item. Dictators, plague - these things are
actually very small compared to the amount of damage which
has been done by religion in the name of peace. In the name
of peace we have had nothing but endless war.

Religion broke its back, by the way, finally on that point.
For, oh, a long, long while religion taught nothing but
peace, peace, peace; turn the other cheek, turn the other
cheek; peace; man is a spirit; save your soul; be good, go
to heaven and get your reward; or if you don't, why, you'll
go to hell and burn forever. They taught this philosophy
that we must have peace, peace, peace. And World War I
found troops of one side finding the dead bodies of troops
of the other side on the battlefield with such legends as
"Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. Well, God was on the
other side, see. God was on their side. God was on the
other fellow's side. God was on everybody's side because it
was a Christian cataclysm. And it broke the back of
Christianity because it almost entirely ruined the faith of
troops in Christianity.

Up to that time the major wars had been fought against
major faiths. It was sort of Catholic against Protestant.
It was one faith against another faith. Christian against
Mohammedan. The godlessness of the Mongol versus the
Christian Europe. You know, their big cataclysmic wars that
had this sort of a division.

But World War I was not of this character. It was Christian
against Christian, just like that. And each side was trying
to pep up its own troops with the idea that God was on
their side. They wore it out.

Naturally, there followed a very godless area. There was no
more godless area in the Christian world than that one
which immediately succeeded World War I. And today
Christianity hasn't gotten on its feet. But if you were to
follow all the principles in government, and so forth,
which are laid down in the name of the spirit, the soul, so
on - if you were to follow these exactly you'd have an awful
mess on your hands.

You see, we've actually had periods when these were
followed exactly - very, very close to exactly. The first
time they were ever followed brought upon the crash of the
biggest and grandest and most plentiful society that we've
had on Earth, the Roman Empire. Edward Gibbon writes
there - I don't know how many million words Edward Gibbon
wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but his
private purpose in writing that book was to demonstrate the
actual action of Christianity in the society. That was his
purpose in writing the book. Ostensibly he was very
interested in the Roman Empire, and because it is a
scholarly study of the Roman Empire it can still be bought
in its entirety. Otherwise it long ago would have been put
on an Index Expurgatorius. It's an interesting book. It
tells you that whereas the Roman nation was responsible for
about ten purges of Christians, and that there were
probably less than a hundred thousand Christians in all the
purges combined for the Roman Empire, there were probably
less than a hundred thousand Christians who were arrested
and imprisoned or condemned. And that was over a period of
a long while; that was over a period of centuries. There
were only about thirty Christians in that first purge that -
the first Roman push against Christians -there were only
about thirty Christians who were martyred in that time.

And yet the Christians themselves slaughtered one hundred
thousand of their own people in one year of rioting in one
city in the Roman Empire, Alexandria. In one year the
Christians themselves murdered more Christians than were
murdered in ten purges officially conducted by the Roman
Empire.

Now, it tells you there must be some mad-dogness in this,
isn't it? There's been more inhumanity conducted in the
name of religion than under any other heading. I saw a
wonderful book one time. It covered the life of Torquemada.
It was oddly and symbolically bound in human skin. It's in
a library down in Pacific Groves, California. It's in
Spanish. It's a very, very old book; the life of
Torquemada. The Spanish Inquisition.

The bloody chapters which have been written back through
history in the name of Christianity and peace tell us that
it doesn't apparently operate all by itself as a good
operation point - you know, if we're going to consider the
health of a society. If we just said, "All is now going to
be operated from the standpoint of religion," we would be
making a considerable error if we wish to bring about
anything like a pleasant or peaceful or progressive
culture. This is no condemnation of Christianity or a
condemnation of man; we're just facing a few facts here.
The world under the rule of religion has not been
successful or peaceful. This we can see with a good clear
glance at history.

Take the Crusades. I don't think there's any more disgraceful 
chapter, actually, in the history of Christianity than these 
battles fought for loot in the name of religion. The enormous 
numbers of people who died of disease and homelessness. You 
take the Child's Crusade. These are bitter chapters in our 
culture because America is essentially a portion of the 
European culture. You can call the American culture, European 
culture more or less the same cultures. And these succeed the 
Roman culture, which only indifferently succeeds the Greek culture.

But here's one line of culture. And we look at this, "Has
it... - we can ask ourselves, "Has it been terrifically
improved by the introduction of religion?" And if we
consider by improvement a calmness, happiness, the ability
to get, beget and to live, why, we just (as people looking
for data and so forth) could not put our vote in the
direction of "Let's be exclusively religious. Let's favor
nothing but this spirit. And then out of this spirit
monitor all of our thoughts and activities." We certainly
wouldn't have a culture. It would be chaos itself.

All right. Whether you agree with that or not agree with
that - because it's not propaganda; I'm merely trying to 
tell you that here... over here we have this tremendous
extremity. We have... everybody says, "Life is really
caused by this mud" as a terrible extreme. And over here,
"Life must be totally monitored by this spirit, and that's
all there is and it can't do anything else but face up to
God, and do this and do that and conduct itself spiritually
and religiously." And it says that over here, you see, and
that's an extreme. And we find out neither one of these
things have really succeeded, because at this moment the
idea that man is actually mud gives adequate license to the
government and its physicists to manufacture sufficient
weapons to destroy all the civil populaces of Earth.

How can they bring their conscience to do this? Simply by
saying, "Well, man is just mud anyhow. He has no right to
happiness. He has no spirit. He has nothing. He's just, you
know, animated rocks. Knock them off. Kill them. Kill
everybody." It's insanity.

You have your rights in the face of such a proposed
cataclysm. Actually, no government has the right to a
single life - not even one life. We're not saying, now, we
don't believe or should believe in capital punishment, but
you see a government is not alive. It is an organism only
so far as it is consented to by other organisms. And to say
that a piece of paper up here has the right to a human
being. Oh, no. It doesn't, not by a long way. And yet
here's an extreme view - "All is mud." Doesn't work. An
extreme view - "All is the spirit." Doesn't work. Truth must
be someplace else.

Well, it's closer in the field of biology. Actually,
biology is making life better for people. Physics isn't,
religion isn't, because they're both too extreme. So there
must be a closer truth in here.

Well, let's take a look at Dianetics and find out that
Dianetics was actually a biological-mental study. A
biological-mental study - that's "biological hyphen mental."
That's what it was. And I call your attention to Issue 28-G
of the Journal of Scientology which gives Scientology: A
New Science, written in 1947. And there is actually the
entering point. That's where we enter the picture. We say,
"Look, we have cells and bodies, and the cells are trying
to survive and the bodies are trying to survive. And they
live in colonial aggregations, and we multiply this out
and we see these cultures existing. And this is what we can
see with our naked eye. Without much assistance we can see
that we do have cells, and we do have bodies and we can see
that these organisms are thinking. So what are they
thinking about? Well, if the cell is trying to survive and
the body is trying to survive, therefore, the thinkingness
must be on the subject of survival." See? "And therefore,
the... intelligence is the ability to resolve problems
relating to survival." So we get a law there. Does it work?
Believe me it worked.

Well, then by headlining right straight down the line of a
biological-mental science, we did suddenly find ourselves
capable of changing the intelligence quotient of an
individual - something that's never been done before,
observedly - and found ourselves capable of curing many
psychosomatic illnesses in people, which had never been
touched before. Miracles could happen, and that's the
first time anybody had reported any miracles for an awful
long time. By monitoring the mind we got changes in the
body. Well, this was very curious. Well, but there was a
biological-mental science.

Now, as we started to continue our studies, observations
and so forth, what happened? We, of course, walked over in
the direction of the spiritual side of man and walked over
in the direction of the physical side of man. In other
words, we merely broadened the biological concept in its
two component parts. And we all of a sudden found
ourselves looking at this thing called biological science
as a combination of the spirit and the physical universe.
You see that? We just broadened that, and the next thing
you know we have two component parts which themselves
combined form this third part. And so we got the theta-MEST
theory.

And that was really the first big advance from that first
approach of looking at the cells and looking at the bodies
and saying, "Well look, they're trying to survive, and
therefore this is what the mind is trying to do." So you
see what happened there. We had theta. Theta was, in
physical universe terms, a nothingness, a something that
had no motion. It didn't have wavelength, it didn't have
any place in space, it didn't have any space. It didn't
have matter, mass - had none of these things - and yet seemed
to be capable of the production of space and, actually,
energy and matter; seemed to be capable of these. But it
wasn't itself these things; it was truly a nothingness.
And this nothingness with these potentials we called theta,
merely because that is the Greek symbol for thought. And
said, "Look, we have this thing called theta operating upon
the physical universe which produces this biological
substance."

Ah-ha! Now, what are the three parts of man? That part of
him which is nothing, that part of him which is totally
physical combine together, as far as the body is concerned,
to be that part of him which is biological. Now, is man
composed of these three things? Well, he sure is. When he's
dead, what remains there is totally physical.

Well, man has long observed this. Let's turn it around and
look at it the other way. When you subtract his body what
have you got? And this has really been a tremendous thing
in terms of cases and results and everything else, because
we started subtracting his body. Instead of subtracting him
from his body, really what we started doing is taking a
look at him as he existed independent of a body. We found
out the body was totally physical, but as long as he was -
or a life unit (there are two life units in a body) - as
long as this life unit was connected to this totally
physical thing, you had an animate biological thing.

And then we got, of course, the spiritual and the physical
side of the individual. And we have gotten up along the
line of our science until we can look at each one
independently. We have taken biology so far apart now that
we can look at the spirit as an entirety, and at the
physical beingness as an entirety, and we can also look at
the biological combination as an entirety.

So that's what we're studying. We're studying three things.
We're studying the physical side of existence - matter,
energy, space, time - we're sure studying it because we've
got brand-new definitions for it.

A fellow came down here the other day... Talk about how new
some of these definitions are. Chap came down here the
other day, Wing Angell, and he said he was up at one of the
big atomic plants talking to some of the engineers. And he
talked to this nuclear physicist for a little while, and
the fellow says, "Well," - very reservedly - "if you do have
something you'd have a definition for space." And Wing said
very promptly, "Yes. Yes, we do. We have a definition for
space. Space is a viewpoint of dimension." And the nuclear
physicist sat there for a moment. And all of a sudden a
kind of a stunned look came in his eye, and he rushed out
and he grabbed the phone and he said, "Shut down the
experiment in number seven!" They were about to blow the
plant apart. All of a sudden one of his own experiments
became meaningful. They'd been operating without a
definition of nothing and without a definition of space.

All right. Over here in the field of religion did we clarify
anything? Oh yes, we sure did. Everybody has been rushing
around in their robes and so forth saying, "Save your soul.
Save your soul. Now, look-a-here fellow, you've got to save
your soul. Now, you've got to believe in something in order
to save your soul, and you'd better save your soul." And
nobody ever thought of asking him, "Well, where is my
soul? Is it over there? Or do I carry it in my pocket? Or
what is this thing you're talking about? You're talking
about something certainly, because it has a name. Where is
it? What is it?"

Well, this statement "Save your soul" obfuscated the entire
problem, because man is his own soul. How can you save
your soul? You can't. You are your own soul. Weird, but you
are. You can't save your own soul. You can yourself back
out away from a body and take a look at it.

Now, what we call you, evidently, down through the years -
we mean by that this biological combination of the physical
and the spiritual, and that's "you." You have brown hair,
and you wear shoes, and you are a man or you are a woman.
Or you do certain things; you smile a certain way; you have
eyes of a certain color. In other words, this youness, you
see, has been pounded home as the combination of the
physical and spiritual which is itself a visible
biological manifestation.

Well, is it quite true? Well, when you tell a fellow "Be
three feet back of your head," believe me he recognizes
that he is himself. But he also recognizes first that he
doesn't have his whole personality. Why doesn't he?
Because he associates his whole personality with an alter
ego which consists of matter. Also these cells have
independent life in them. And here he's really - when you say
"you" - a total package of life. When he's three feet back
of his head he is unable to muster up a personality because
he's so dependent upon the physical part of the thing to
muster up this personality. So he feels kind of
personality-less. The personality is still parked there in
his head.

Well, we've done a tremendous thing in just finding out
that you could say to 50 percent of the people you meet "Be
three feet back of your head," and the fellow says, "For
heaven's sakes I am." This was awfully tough. It's only
tough because it was very simple. Been talking about "Save
your soul" which, of course, put a red herring on the whole
track. The whole track had a red herring on it. What was
it? "Your soul is over there." You know, your soul is
something you carry in your hip pocket; not you. Well, the
second we recognize that a man's soul is himself - all the
life which he will ever have really, as far as an intimate
contact with life itself, is himself, and that is a unit
which is capable of producing space, is capable of
producing energy and is capable of producing matter. And
that is the individual. We shouldn't say the body's life unit.

But when we first get him out he doesn't have any real
recognition of himself, usually, as a personality. It's
only after he looks around a little bit and recognizes that
he can have a personality, and this whole thing called
personality is built on a lot of postulates, that he can
take his personality onto himself. In other words, while
exteriorized - which is to say, a soul without a body while
the body still lives - he yet can have a personality and he
yet can experience joy and pain and so forth.

Now, here is the individual. This individual is immortal.
But his immortality, of course, can be on a very gradient
scale of comfort. He can be mortal very uncomfortably and
rather blind, or he can be immortal, clearseeing and able
to take care of himself. And we find out that this
individual, you, evidently go all along the track of life,
but that the shock of loss of one of these bodies - while
you're attributing all your personality to the body - the
shock of its loss is sufficient that it wipes out your
memory concerning it. Because you say, "Well, the body
remembers." Man believes this; he believes that the body
does his remembering. It does his eating for him, doesn't
it? And it does his talking for him. Well, therefore it
does his remembering.

And an individual with a little drills begins to pick up
memory on the whole track. But completely aside from these
things - we're getting off into controversial things - we do
have here these component parts, then, in a preclear. We
have, first, this unit which is capable of the production
of energy, which unit is alive and is aware. And we would
call this an awareness unit. It's also a space-energy
production unit, and this is the individual. And when
you've subtracted that you actually do have the individual
because with a little bit of drill he can have returned to
him the personality which he ordinarily attributes to
himself plus his body. But this is a matter of postulates.
But we do have this and we can separate this individual
from his body.

This is a fantastic thing and is actually a very major
discovery. Here we had first this biological-mental
approach. And the next thing we had right on top of that -
we came along with this theta-MEST theory that there is a
nothingness up against an allness, and these two in
combination make this biological phenomena. And the next
thing above that is all of a sudden we've got the pure
spiritual side of existence staring at us there. We
actually can separate an individual from his body.

Well, these are quite some discoveries, by the way, to have
a concatenation of that character, but look at the
pattern. These are the inevitable discoveries aren't they?
Once we take a rear view of the whole thing we find quite
easily that, naturally, we'd discover more. Once we started
looking at it you couldn't help but discover more about the
physical universe. And that once you started looking at it,
instead of just believing in it or protecting your soul or
something, you'd certainly discover more about the
spiritual side of things. And, of course, naturally then
you'd discover an awfil lot of things about the biological
side of things. It's a combination of the two.

There are the parts with which you are working. The primary
difference between the physical and the spiritual side...
You see, it's not fair to say mental side. Where is mental
parked? Biological. Biological-mental - that's the center
pin. The only real phrase which fits it at all is what man
considers spiritual. That phrase fits it much more aptly
than any other, but, of course, he really hasn't had a
phrase for it. We've had to put a new word in there - thetan.
A symbol to represent a missing hole in the language.
Because spiritual - he means many other things by spiritual.
But we say over here the spiritual side of existence and
the physical side of existence have a primary difference
between them, an enormous difference between them. One
thing which you will recognize instantly - instantly. The
physical side of existence does not get ideas. You see
that? I mean, there's an immediate difference there. Now,
over here on the spiritual side of existence you got ideas.
And over here on the physical side of existence you have no
ideas at all. 

Oh, some chap who just got his "magna cum louder" or
something at M.I.T. might try to say to you, "Well, look at
these big electronic brains; they get ideas." Oh, nonsense.
What he's defining as an idea is a datum. An idea is not a
datum. But the funny part of it is that not one of those
electronic machines ever had taken out of it a datum which
was not put into it.

The physicist believes totally that you cannot originate
anything new; you can't originate any ideas; there are no
ideas to originate; everything has been originated in the
past. And as you get the mental index of people and you
draw their mental index you find out that the worse off
they are the more thoroughly they believe that everything
is already thought up and that cause is in the past and
there is no cause or originality in the present.

And physics has subscribed to this almost 100 percent as a
theory and a philosophy - you can't originate anything,
conservation of energy, all these other things.

We have ideas, is the primary difference there. And so when
we get into the subject of control at all we would get
whether an individual was alive or not - it would be
whether or not he could get ideas. I mean, there's really
the sole test of whether he's alive or not: Can he get ideas?

We say somebody is dead. He's in a cataleptic trance; he's
lying there; he's barely breathing; his heart is barely
beating; and we say, "Well, is that individual alive or
dead?" Well, he's biologically still alive because his
blood is still flowing, if sluggishly, through his body.
But from a spiritual standpoint we would have to say,
"Well, this person is very, very low on the biochemical
band," but he certainly isn't getting any ideas, is he? You
could just say a person is able... is alive as long as he
gets ideas, and when he doesn't get ideas anymore he's not
alive.

And as a matter of fact, when you were very young you had
lots of hopes, dreams, aspirations, ambitions, and you
wanted to go through life and do this and do that. Those
were ideas, and you had lots of ideas. And people came
along and said, "You shouldn't get this idea. And you
shouldn't get that idea. You shouldn't be so wild about
this. You should think more soberly about this whole thing,
and you should dedicate yourself to just one line of
attack. What you should become is maybe a good cook or
something like that, you know. Hold yourself down to one
thing and you won't get these wild notions, and so forth."
And so you foolishly bought this philosophy. Wasn't any
reason to buy it except that it just seemed like a
philosophy that seemed to be fairly true. You wanted to get
ahead in life. And, you know, you didn't feel as alive. And
when you ran totally out of goals and ideas and ambitions
and - all of this covered under the heading of ideas,
concepts - when you totally ran out of them you didn't have
any future at all. You actually would dwell more in the
past than you would in the future. Why? There were ideas in
the past. You had ideas once upon a time.

In short, an individual is as alive as he has ideas. He's
as aware as he has ideas. Doesn't mean he has to hectically
go on getting ideas, ideas, ideas. But it also doesn't mean
that every idea has to be put into action. That's the way
the MEST universe operates as a big trap. It says
"Look-a-here, you better not get an idea without putting it
into action." Who said so?

Now, when you walked out... when you were three or four
years old, and you walked out and looked at the morning and
you saw just a little bit of dew on the rose bushes and so
forth, boy, that was a bright world. Whee! Just blindingly
bright. Fresh, clear, startling, adventurous. Well, you saw
the world because you could get ideas.

And later on, you walk out, you take a look at it - nah.
Well, if you checked yourself up during those two periods
you find out as a little kid, boy, could you get ideas. You
wouldn't have to believe in your own ideas at all. It
wasn't necessary to do. But you could know that they were
there and put them there and (quote) "believe in them" long
enough to have a future and perception and so forth. You'd
say, "Well, now the Billy Goat Gruff is just on the other
side of the porch." It's okay. So there's a billy goat on
the other side of the porch. "And the Black Knight is about
to charge us, and here I stand in my white armor about to
slaughter him."

Ideas. World full of action - actually none of it put into
practice. Little bit later on, why, you had to have a gun
instead of your thumb and forefinger. You had to have an
actual gun bought down at the drugstore for $1.98. It was
no longer good enough to point your finger at somebody and
twitch your thumb and say, "You're dead." He'd say, "I am
not dead." But if you had a gun, why, maybe he'd say,
"Well, I guess I'm not dead."

You started to acquire objects in order to back up your
ideas. Actually, no more fatal course exists. And when you
find a person well along to where he isn't getting ideas
anymore, he has to have things before he can do things.
He'll think in terms of have, have, have, have, have. He's
got to have. He's got to have this and he's got to have
that. And when he gets them all laid out then he can do
something.

That isn't the way it runs. It runs from the idea through
doingness to havingness. And if an individual has to
acquire in order to do, he finds himself almost incapable
of going from havingness back to doingness, because
doingness is a lighter, more airy thing. It has more ideas
associated in it than havingness.

Now, get what havingness is. Havingness is a totally fixed
idea. A desk is a codified, solidified idea. See, it is a
desk. That's a fixed idea proven with matter and energy.
And a person who hasn't any desk there at all doesn't even
have to have a mock-up to get an idea.

And all you want a person to do in therapy is to be able to
regain his ability to have ideas and to change the ideas
which he's continuing with. He actually doesn't even have
to change these ideas if he can get lots of ideas. He's run
into a scarcity of ideas. He's fixed them down into too
many things. So this scarcity of ideas is registered in the
fact that everything is pretty solid. He gets ideas. As
long as he gets ideas he's all right, but now his ideas are
all fixed. He has begun to echo the physical universe. He
has begun to take dictation from the physical universe.

An individual who is himself capable of the production of
enormous numbers of ideas, capable of creating and
destroying, is asked to survive by echoing only those
things he perceives. He can only duplicate what he sees. He
can only act like what he sees. Original idea? No, he can't
have that.

So you get, actually, the happiness, the sanity, all these
other things - we have a gradient scale which is an
interesting and a simple gradient scale. It goes up here
from the total spiritual all the way down the line to the
total physical. And if we take points on this scale - in
other words, if we pull biology apart and stretch it up
here into the total spiritual side and the total material
side down here, we find out that an individual at the top
has enormous fluidity. He does not need any space. He can
create space. He doesn't really need any energy or anything
like that, but in order to produce some randomity, in order
to produce some action, excitement in existence, he has
this space - he produces some space, he produces some energy.

Now, he more and more holds onto and connects with space
and energy, objects and so forth. And the more he has of
these and the more he's dedicated to them, the more he is
trying to make them survive as objects and forms, the
further down this scale he goes. Well, the optimum point is
about 20, you'd say, about halfway between. Well, that's
true enough. But when he starts drifting away from this
point which is in the middle, down towards 0 - assigning
just the arbitrary of 40 over here at the spiritual side;
20 at the biological side - when he starts going over here
he can no longer make this mental-biological object
function. He has lost his control of it. And he begins to
feel very sad indeed. He's lost his ability to control it,
totally. He can't control it. He can't really keep it out
of danger. He can't change it, he can't heal it or alter
it. And he's on his way south. He's coasting right on down
here toward the physical universe, and he finally winds up
as a physicist. That's right. And he gets the philosophy of
a physicist.

Actually, if we consider that the physical universe is
God's universe and is built by God, the most religious
person in it would be a nuclear physicist. He studies and
examines God's postulates all day long. You might say, as
far as the physical universe is concerned, the only really
godly man would be a physicist, because he's the only one
that is totally dedicated to following the rules,
regulations of God. We look at these boys and we find out
that they are in awfully bad shape. They have agreed
thoroughly to the fact that they have to echo and mimic
only physical things. That's very degraded. They get down
to a degradation where they have no conscience, really,
about making an atom bomb. No conscience about it or
regulating it or anything of the sort. They've just
neglected all their responsibilities.

Now, I'm just joking when I say they're the most godly
people because those people today have, really, no concept
of the idea of God or spirituality. They have had to drift
away from this, they think, because of their own practical
considerations. But these two points are very wide apart,
and the sanest end of it happens to be the totally
spiritual. And the maddest end of it, really, is the
totally physical.

But after we've gone entirely through the totally physical,
what do we come out upon? We come out where Sir James Jeans
and other great physical philosophers of yesterday have
finally emerged. True enough they were the most godly men
in the world, because when they wound up all of their work,
when they wrote their greatest book, they inevitably put in
as a last line the fact that all of their studies had led
to a complete conclusion that there must be something
called God. They've gone all the way through the band of
nuclear physics. When they've done that they wind up on
the side that there must be a God. And they have assigned
all ability to create space to another being.

Where do we find religion? Where, really, is this thing
called religion, then? Is it up here on the spiritual side?
It isn't, is it? It's down here on the physical side. Funny
but that's the way it behaves, too.

Now, somebody comes along, exteriorizes you. You recognize
that you are something which is separate from the body,
something which can control a body, something which can use
a body, heal a body, that you can have to do with other
organisms, other bodies. You recognize this, you have
recognized a great truth. Just recognizing that is a great
truth, and you've suddenly moved well up from the
biological-mental strata over here toward a real spiritual
strata.

Now, in spite of the fact that we found religion way over
here on the spiritual side of the ledger and we said "Man
must have some sympathy with religion," we didn't find this
spirit that we discovered to have much in common with
religious teachings or practices. We didn't find, for
instance, very much about this in religion, because
religion talks about your soul and talks about the wrath of
God. And the wrath of God and the wrath of God and the
wrath of God and the wrath of God. And God will love if you
don't make him mad at you, and so forth.

And we just don't find that when we move over here onto the
spiritual side. We find out that you're you and you are
capable of producing space and energy, and you are capable
of a rather definite freedom, and that you evidently have
an enormous potentiality for immortality. And we look
around in vain for some God to shake the hand of And we
find out that as far as, really, God is concerned, God then
must be the spiritual agreement of all of us, and our
search for that thetan in the people to whom we talk.

Everybody knows that there's a nothingness - he knows it
really; instinctively he feels it - that there's a
nothingness in this person to whom he's talking, you see.
And he looks at their face but he senses their spirit. And
so he knows that there is some sort of a nothingness in
existence. After all, if he's talked to a thousand people,
he's sort of sensed that there's a thousand... he's
talked to kind of a thousand of these thetans. He just
feels this instinctively. But sooner or later he's going to
agree, very solidly, that there is some kind of a hidden
influence around. Well, there sure is. There's the thetan.
People often go around being certain there's something
hidden in the actions of other people. Well, there sure is;
there's a thetan - real hidden. It's not visible in terms of
physical universe energy.

Well, if we were less able to reduce all this to
experimental proof, we would have to walk very softly. But
we don't have to walk very softly because we are today
turning out the most definite therapeutic results which man
has turned out using the very principles which I've just
talked to you about. And these are the principles we are
operating with. You have to know something about the
physical universe. You have to know something about the
biological-mental picture. But you certainly better know
something about the spiritual side of the picture because
it's the only causative element you're dealing with. The
other two elements-the biological and the physical - are
effects. The most total effect there is, is the physical
universe. So you're actually studying cause in the thetan
over to effect as the physical universe. And that is the
band of the knowledge and the data which you are handling
with Dianetics.

(end of lecture)
_


