View source for Know-How Of Auditing (1MACC 591109)

'''Series:''' 1st Middle-American ACC (1MACC)

'''Date:''' 9 November 1959

'''Speaker:''' L. Ron Hubbard

----

← [[Lecture_Index_1MACC|Back to Series]]

This is the 1st Melbourne ACC. And you are here.

Audience: Yes.

I feel for you, of course.

The general situation with regard to an ACC is that there are those who survive it – people have been known to survive it, and those that do of course stand high in everybody's good graces. And those who don't, don't.

But you're allowed one blow per week. That's what you're allowed, one blow per week. But don't blow twice in a week, not twice, it's too many. And you don't even have to take the one. But, of course, nobody will feel you're getting anywhere unless you blow at least once during the course. That's for true, for these courses can be pretty rough.

But before we start in on this I want to thank you very much for a very fine congress. You did a terrific job, staff. That was an easy congress for me to give. And when it's an easy congress for me to give, why, I know the staff did a good job. So thank you.

Audience: Thank you.

You know that's pretty good for the first time – with a drill, with me there and so forth and so on, to run it off as smoothly as that. And as a matter of fact there were many compliments from the audience and attendees and so forth on how smoothly it was run. A couple of people thought there was a hitch – they weren't permitted to see me in the middle of the lecture. Well, I'm very pleased about that. I'm also very pleased at the people that could come to this ACC, extremely so.

Because we – we find over a period of time that Scientology runs along its own course rather successfully, everything goes along fine, people get results and so on. Well, without an occasional – I hate to have to say this – but occasional personally directed course, why, some of the smooth little curves get lost, and attention gets put over on things that aren't too important.

And so we look to the people who are here on this ACC to be able to hold the standard for Australia. That's why I'm very glad the people that are on this course are on the course. Because holding the standard for Australia is a rather rough one because Australians are rather individualistic. It's got too much space down here.

I don't know if you know it, but I already know the Australian case. I don't know if you know the Australian case – how you've been processing it, but I'm sure you don't think of it as being a different kind of case. But it is a different kind of case. The cases in Australia are quite different than the cases of England; England are quite different as a general run from the cases in South Africa.

The Australian case is not a rough case. The South African case is much rougher in average than the Australian case, and the English case is rougher than the Australian case.

Now, you may think of yourselves as cousins to the English and all that sort of thing, but your cases don't work that way. The characteristics of the Australian case (just in passing here) are too great an individuation. The greatest of ease of individuation, so that you can get an ARC breaky session going in Australia, and unfortunately you very often don't hear about it from the preclear. He feels he's so much in his rights, you see, to have his own opinion that he doesn't bother to tell you when it differs from yours. Got it?

An Australian case can go out of session on the average much more easily than other types of case.

Now, an English case does nothing but ARC break vocally. They are very, very vocal, and if the auditor shifts his little finger too far sideways and it becomes an ARC break, he normally hears about it. That's not really true of an Australian case.

My generalities on this are simply based on processing Australians, but not in Australia. You see, Australians get all over the world just like any other Scientologist.

First time an Australian case was called to my attention as being different than other types of cases was when I found that Australians would do a bunk three times as fast as any other nationality. They will, they do a bunk. And I mean now the real do a bunk, not get up out of the auditing chair and run. That's an American case. They'd blow out of their 'eads. I'd say some enormous percentage of Australians could be exteriorized almost with pfttt. Because you've got too much space down here. Space! Don't have any scarcity of space, but you do have a scarcity of mass. There is evidently some mass scarcity in the cases on this particular continent, but no space scarcity. You always feel like you can go out to the center of the continent and get lost and nobody would ever hear of you again.

This same spirit used to pervade the Old West and perhaps I feel I know a great deal about Australian cases because I know a great deal about US Old West cases – space! Tremendous quantities of space, very small amounts of population, you see.

Well, the Old West exists today in TV programs and movies. And that case has pretty well disappeared.

But the cases which you process are cases that will sit there and endure – very often not tell you very much about it. They go out of session without you really finding out about it. They run out of havingness and don't notice it. These are the peculiarities of the case. Now, they respond to processing just like any other case with this proviso: that you don't run super exteriorization processes on an Australian case. Therefore SCS in Australia is a greater liability than in any other locale on Earth. You can blow somebody out of his head with SCS. Have you ever done it?

Audience: Yes.

Well, down here you could do it awful easy, and if you start running Stop Supreme on somebody – I think you could run almost any Australian case on Stop Supreme. You really get them to stop, really get them to stop!

You know, after the fellow is stopped, you say, "Well, did you stop that body?" This is very invalidative and it's not proper auditing. Stop Supreme would go something on this order, "Did you stop that body?"

And the pc says, "Yes." He stopped the body.

You say, "The heart's still going!"

The control factor must be asserted more delicately and in other ways than in a blunt SCS if you really expect to get someplace with an Australian case. Your control here must basically stem from a tremendous ability to audit. How do you like that?

You know if you really know how to audit you don't have to worry about control. Your certainty and confidence is so great that it itself communicates to the pc. And he does what you say because he knows it's right.

Now, when we discuss control and control of the pc during cases and so on, when we have to discuss it mechanically – say "You do this" and "You do that "and so forth to assert control, we're actually talking for the auditor who can't audit. Because if he could audit very, very, very, very well, I assure you that there is no question in the pc's mind about whether or not he should execute the command he has been given. All you have to be is an excellent auditor and you have altitude.

In the old days in England some people used to get to be excellent auditors by simply going around and telling everybody they were excellent auditors and there were enough people hypnotized around and about the place to believe it. That's right. Well, that's not the way to get to be an excellent auditor. The way to get to be an excellent auditor is just to get to be an excellent auditor, that's all.

Fundamentally your poise as an auditor and your confidence as an auditor stems from your confidence in your own know-how and ability. You're as good an auditor as you don't have question marks scattered around in your wits. The more question marks that you have about basic definitions and the subject and what it can do and what Ron was doing in 1953 and whether or not he actually meant what he said at the congress and rah-rah-rah-rah – the more of these things you've got kicking around, the less good an auditor you are. Nobody says you can't have your own opinion but you just at least have your opinion made up, you understand?

Don't go on a medium ground. You have opinion, you know. "Well, let's see, I ought to have this opinion but my opinion really is something else," you know. Communicates to the pc.

"I ought to be doing such and such a process according to HCOB so-and-so but I've never had any success with it, but I'll run it anyway."

Well, even if you ran it on the basis that you knew damn well you weren't going to get any success with it, you'd control the pc! Sounds funny. What we're looking for is positiveness. Positiveness, and nothing can substitute for positiveness.

Now, your ability goes very well along with your confidence in attaining and achieving results. If you have never had any results whatsoever with Scientology or Dianetics, never had any results of any kind, never produced any effects with it, we'd have to do something spectacular with you in this course. We'd have to set you to auditing somebody with something that got a result and you would know it got a result and that would be that. But I'm sure there is nobody here who is in that category because we've been around too long and there have been too many good processes that have worked too well for you not to have sometime or another at least healed up somebody's sore finger. Isn't that right?

Audience: Yes.

So, we won't discuss that level of it. Now we substitute for confidence, accuracy of TRs. Accurate TRs are a substitute for confidence, because if you were totally confident in what you were doing and you knew your subject you would follow through those TRs anyway. So, you can see right here at this juncture that you have been going forward on a scale of substitutes for being an excellent auditor. You got it?

Audience: Yes.

You've been counting on this, that and the other thing to prop you up and put you forward, and uttering the command in the right tone of voice with the little finger held at the exact way. In this ACC we are going to tear all that up and throw it away. I don't pretend to be the best auditor who will ever be, but certainly at this stage of the game I'm the best auditor there is around. And I say that not because I have to but I'm sure you will agree with me.

But I can use CCHs just exactly as it's written in the book and I can do the TRs just exactly as you see them written down. And the first time I did them and put them through, I found out that they improve my auditing. So, you've not lost anything by knowing the TRs. But remember that a decade before there were TRs I was clearing people.

Now, how come anybody ever responded to auditing when there were no rules of auditing? Well, I had found out very early what there was to know about the other fellow's wits. And knowing that, when his wits zigged, I didn't zag. I knew where he went. And after a while in session he would find out that there wasn't any use running away because I would be standing right there saying, "Well, there it is."

As a matter of fact, some of the cases have responded along such crude lines as getting tired – you don't have to be able to do this – but getting tired to death of a pc dodging and wiggling and monkeying and so forth, and know exactly what he was sitting in, exactly what he was doing, and telling him to take an exact action now, and I wasn't going to put up with it a second longer.

I will give you an idea of what that was, that exact action now. One particular case, a rather famous person in Australia at this time in Scientology – I said to that case one night – that person, "Pick up that rock and bash her head in!"

"No. No, no, no." He had been fooling around and fooling around with this thing and fooling around with it and the facsimile was sitting right there and I just couldn't stand it any longer and it was getting late and I said, "Oh, the devil with it! Pick up the rock and bash her head in!" See? And he did, and boom! that was the end of that facsimile.

Now, that's auditing according to know-how. Do you understand? That's not auditing according to the process, that's already – auditing according to know-how.

You saw what the pc was doing, what he was failing to do, what he wouldn't do. You didn't have to look at a facsimile. Actually it was written all over him, you know. You said, "Go on now. Get the idea of harming a girl."

"Well, all right, all right, I'll harm a girl. I'll harm a girl."

And you finally just furnish the willpower necessary to take the heavy overt action. In other words, you said, "Well, do it!" you know? "Do it! Do it! Do it!" And you got a result.

So I think that person remembers, and it wasn't a harmful result. It blew a facsimile up.

And it wouldn't have to be any codified processes or any rules of thumb or anything else if you simply knew exactly what the case was doing that you confronted at that moment. When you zigged, the case zigged, and when you zagged, the case zagged, right?

Well, of course you could force him to do it, or you could put a super control on it and do it, or you could use many other substitutes and do it, but the truth of the matter is, knowing what's going on, your confidence is such that you don't mince matters. You don't necessarily get tough or hard-boiled or mean as I got that night with that person. I hope he forgives me.

Male voice: I'll forgive you, Ron.

All right. Thank you. Thank you.

But the case knows you know and knows that you are trying to help him out.

Now, there's the old thing, you see – the first mistake you make is to identify the pc with his reactive bank, the first mistake everybody makes because that's the mistake the pc is making. That's his primary error. He's identifying himself with the reactive bank. And of course, the reactive bank is composed of valences and circuits and pictures and spaces and oddities and mishmashes and identifications and so forth. And whatever is in the reactive bank he thinks he's it.

So, when he looks at you holding out a helping hand and says raahhrrr, you're a very foolish auditor if you don't know exactly what has happened. You offered him help and for a split instant if you're a good observer you could see even a raving psycho start to accept that help. But the thought of accepting help is so restimulative to the bank that the bank cuts in and although you were talking to the pc for a second you wind up talking to the bank.

Now, what are you going to do, bash that bank down like the psychiatrists do, and bash the pc down at the same time? What are you going to do? Or are you going to help the pc overcome the bank?

Now, the good auditor always helps the pc overcome the bank and pretty well ignores the bank beyond locating what there is in the bank that has to be eradicated.

It's the pc, a thetan, we are trying to rehabilitate, not a bank. And pcs act pretty nasty sometimes, they're pretty mean from where you sit. They're pretty loathsome from where you sit but it's not true, not even a true remark, you see. The bank's pretty nasty from where you sit. The bank's pretty reactive from where you sit; but the pc is there, is reachable, is attainable and reacts to you regardless of what phenomena he gives off! If you know that and if you can get a good reality on that, boy, can you audit! Wow!

A paranoid schiz, which is merely a dirty word invented by psychiatry – it'd classify anybody. A paranoid schiz gets up off his bunk, takes a knife out of his pocket, he's going to cut your throat because you were trying to help him out – long knife. Now, if you say, "Oh, don't cut my throat" (validate the bank), you've put your horsepower into the bank and of course it cuts your throat. This is easy – more dead psychiatrists.

But actually if you were to say to him, "Okay, put the knife back in your pocket and lie down on the couch now and we'll go on with the session," he'll put the knife back into his pocket and lie down on the couch and go on with the session because now he can, because you validated him. He followed through what you thought was a right action.

Now one of these fine days you'll be processing a pc and you'll get him into something that's very restimulative and the facsimiles will be flying by and he will be stuck in some valence which is the roaring monster from Oz, and he'll start coming up out of that chair and decide to have at you and finish you off and that's it! And up to that time you thought Joe was a good guy and totally sane but you are now disabused of the fact, you think.

And you ought to do it just once to find out what happens. After all, you're not into – you're not averse to being destructed a little bit. You ought to do it just once to find out what happens. Flinch! Just once, flinch! And it's almost as if you ordered his bank to pull him the rest of the way out of the chair and sock you over the head. All you have to do is look like you're going to flinch and you validate the bank, just like that.

It beefs up, it stiffens up, the bank does, and goes into further action, because you have now given it permission to. And the auditor never gets anything that he doesn't give permission to have happen.

The main trouble with you as an auditor is you're basically as unwilling as I am to play God. You can always play God, it's too easy. The funny part of it is in an auditing session you have to.

If you realize that you're creating everything you look at, or adding to its creation and if you're willing to create everything you're looking at, there isn't anything a case wouldn't do for you. I don't care how crazy the case is.

I remember a psycho girl running down the street one day outside the operation and so forth. Everybody was trying to catch her and so forth. And she was really mad, gone dog. And I saw her and stopped. We'll say her name was Janice, and I said, "Oh, hello, Janice, how are you!" And she stopped and threw her arms around my neck and walked back into the operation. Everybody was trying to catch her, you understand. Well, they were validating that she was running away, weren't they? Well, all I did was validate the fact she'd arrived.

And these tricks look pretty darned mysterious to somebody who doesn't – isn't in the know, but it's almost mystic and esoteric. Not so really, because these – these are very understandable things.

But what you can really do with another human being in an auditing session is so far beyond anything you have done, that you need to see just a little more light. I'm not saying you haven't seen some pretty fantastic things. You undoubtedly have. But I'm saying that's nothing, that's nothing.

Little boy walking down the street on crutches and you say "hello" to him and he throws the crutches away. Ah, we heard of somebody doing that a couple of thousand years ago, didn't we? Maybe he existed. I know he was being implanted one million, two hundred and fifty thousand years ago in space opera. That's the first Christ implant you'll find according to the E-Meters. But very probably there was somebody around a couple of thousand years ago. Actually, Jerusalem was part of my district at that time, and I remember a guy, Pontius Pilate, and he always used to write good reports, and he never wrote any report on this. He is the sort of a fellow that would have reported a revolution if there had been one. I don't remember him reporting this. Of course this is a gag.

Do you know what you'd have to be able to do to accomplish that? You would have to be willing to create entire beingness and disability of that boy with enough withhold that you didn't unmock him entire, and you could produce miracle healing.

Now, auditing itself depends to some degree on miracle healing. And the longer you sit back waiting for the process to do it, and the longer you sit back waiting for Ron to do it, the less it's going to happen. You're not going to make Clears waiting for something else to do it. You're going to do it.

If you don't do it – look, who else is there! There's the pc and he's been an aberree for the last 15 trillion, squillion years, hasn't he? He's been spinning ever since they pulled his last temple down on his head or whatever happened. Well, if he could get out of the bank just at a whoooo, he wouldn't be your pc, so he can't do it. And when you're in an auditing room all by yourself with just the pc, you know, and a couple of chairs or couch or something, you look around real carefully and find out who else in that room is going to do it! Nobody going to do it but you.

Now, there's two reasons why you can do it if you do it. Your own technical know-how is sufficiently explicit that you know what's going on – oh, via an E-Meter and by talking to the pc and by watching his reactions you know what's going on, that's the one factor. Your knowingness – what's going on and if you have a knowingness of what's going on, believe me, you feel confident about it.

Did you ever feel nervous or inconfident about turning on a radio set when you could obviously see the switch? You just went over and turned the switch on, didn't you? Were you embarrassed and twisted your fingers and so forth while you did it, did you? No, you just went over and turned the switch on.

Well, that's what know-how does for you, it gives you confidence. And in addition to that it tells you what to do, and you are confident because you know what to do and you know what to do because you know what's going on. Well, there's that factor – there's that factor. And that's a very, very important factor.

But also where you're concerned there's the factor of other-determinism. Anything that is wrong with the pc has as one of its labels other-determinism. Now you heard that lecture at the congress. Well, certainly with you, as long as you've been around the subject and so forth, you don't need vast long lectures on other-determinism, self-determinism, pan-determinism and so forth. But that pc is other-determined, and the common denominator of the bank is other-determined.

And boy, that bank will obey you long before it will obey the pc. You, because you're the auditor, can tell the bank to do anything and it does it. It's just as stupidly simple as that. I know it looks too simple but that's a fact. The bank obeys you before it obeys the pc. And that's why you can audit.

Now, if you had a bunch of dominoes up here on this desk, you had a bunch of dominoes stood up here, and your problem was to get all the double fours out of the line, certainly you have to be other-determined to some degree as far as the dominoes are concerned, you have to reach over and move the double fours out of the line, or whatever it is, you see.

And we go back to the first one I mentioned – you'll play the devil getting the double fours out of the line if you don't even know there's dots on dominoes.

So the fact that the bank obeys you before it obeys somebody else, mainly the pc, coupled with your knowledge of what the bank consists of, can do anything you want or can bring yourself to do, with the bank.

Now why can't you bring yourself to do some things with the bank? And we get the third factor. "Well," we say, "well, it's restimulative."

Let me give you an idea. The little boy is on crutches and he's going down the street, and you're going to walk up to this little boy, and you're going to say, "How are you, son?" and at that moment, why, his withered legs and so forth, are going to become whole and he's going to throw away his crutches and he's going to say, "Wheel"

Do you know what you've got to be willing to do? Well, we know now. I finally dug up information and dug up more information and cross-coordinated information and finally got this thing pretty well pinned down so that we could, in this ACC, start going for OT. And the first lesson you have to learn in "start going for OT" is you have to be willing to create any condition you would eradicate.

And of course, we look at the little boy going down the street on crutches, some Tiny Tim with withered legs, and we say, that poor little boy, and we fix his legs up. Do you know that you've got to be willing to have him have crippled legs before you can fix his legs up?

Don't go halfway and get super mystic about this and say, "Well, I've got to have withered legs myself before he goes…"No, no, no. That's Freudian and that's about halfway up…

As a matter of fact you can get a pc's somatics dead easy if you yourself think they're terrible. Yeah, but you've really got to think they're awful bad and you've got to be real sympathetic before anything like that happens to you.

But these societies, these do-gooders and these holier-than-thou societies are going around saying," Do away with cancer. Do away with cancer. Do away with cancer. Do away with cancer." Pooh. You know they eventually pass laws that anybody who says he can do anything for cancer should be jailed.

The society that gets so dead against this and so dead against that actually creates it, just as prisons create criminals. The society is totally unwilling to create a criminal, they think it's so bad, they can't have it, so therefore they can't control it. And the more they're dead against criminals, the more criminals they get. They just can't pan-determine the situation at all, much less other-determine it. They just say, "Criminal, that's very bad and nobody must become a criminal, there mustn't be any criminals, and criminals mustn't be and they just mustn't be and that fellow is a criminal, therefore put him behind bars and put him away and bury him deep and, oh, we mustn't even view criminals."

Well, for heaven's sakes, what are they doing? They're down to invisibility of criminality, you know. They've got to make the criminal invisible. Only he isn't invisible. Every three months or every year or every two or seven years or something like that, they open up the gates and say, "Well, here's some cash and a new suit. Get out of here." See, and the fellow walks out into the society, and he says, "Well, I've learned my lesson now: don't get caught."

Furthermore, all the time he was in there, he was getting a good education on the subject of how to be a good criminal. As a matter of fact the communists… The Western world ought to know more about communism but don't you go thinking I'm hip particularly on the subject. It's just something like – I'm not, they just keep calling themselves to my attention all the time, and I don't go on ignoring them forever.

I was very interested in making a rather thorough study of the operation called Mau Mau in Kenya very recently. I was fascinated with it because it offered some factors in human relationships which are practically unbelievable to me.

For instance the only people the Mau Mau killed were the people who helped the colored people. That's right. So I figured this was crazy enough that it required a little more study. Maybe I'd find some more things about help. And I found out basically that Mau Mau – the Mau Mau movement, was not the blacks of Kenya, and that some fantastic figure, something like 200 native Africans were killed for every white man. The Mau Mau really mowed down their fellow countrymen, they specialized on them. And they were killing the people who helped their fellow countryman, because their fellow countryman mustn't be helped. The Mau Mau was dead against the black.

It was a communist action. I got very interested in it. And it was fostered and fermented up in the jails of northern Africa, very, very early commie agents actually got themselves arrested and put in prison so they could train all the rest of the criminals in Mau Mau, and as fast as their sentences were up, new Mau Mau agents were released into the African society. It's about the wildest thing you ever heard of. That's the truth, these are the factual reports, the official ones that have come out of the thing on painstaking investigation, nobody drawing any conclusions from them. What's amazing is that nobody drew any conclusions from these reports.

So, by having something invisible and hidden, a whole society could become diseased – something that nobody would look at, something that nobody would confront.

Criminality usually comes about from the duress of the individual; the society versus the individual becomes a lesson. And somebody is taught the society is against him, he's not a part of the society, he individuates down to a point where he himself cannot even be viewed by the society. The society puts him out of circulation and so forth. Well, then, he becomes a new cancer kind of sickness in the society.

Individuation is quite a subject. We're going to talk a lot about individuation in this ACC. But individuation of criminals carried out – most Q and A, 1, 2, 3, 4 you ever saw.

Do you know that all that's wrong with some fellow who has a cancerous hip is that his hip has individuated from the rest of the body? The only thing that's wrong with a fellow with a bad stomach is that his stomach has individuated from the rest of the body. That's all. It's out of communication and everything is out of communication with it.

And why do you think injuries go away because you start communicating with them? See, all you do with communication is knock out the individuation to a marked degree. You as-is some of the individuation and hiddenness of that part. You bring it back into communication and you bring it back into circulation and the next thing you know, why, somebody gets well.

So a society is as well as it is in communication.

That doesn't mean that everybody is everybody else. That's craziness in reverse. See, if everybody is everybody else really, and nobody is an individual at all, why, we've all spun in together, haven't we?

Well, somewhere in the middle ground between extreme individuation and extreme identification as represented in something like nirvana, there's a livable existence. As long as one isn't all the way out and as long as one isn't all the way in, why, he can survive.

But an individual has to become, not tolerant as the old-timers would have you believe – "Well, the way to become not extreme is just to become totally tolerant. "Murder, rape, arson, whole cities going down to dust, you know. The true philosopher was somebody who could be tolerant of it. "Just let it all happen and be tolerant." That's a craziness too that we call figure-figure.

A fellow can stand there and watch a fire busily consuming the whole structure and there's buckets of water and buckets of sand and he'll say, "Well, it isn't my property" and he just never picks up anything or puts out anything and so on. Well, that isn't anything, that's a person who is so identified and so individuated that he's no longer any part of anything and he isn't, but he can think. But he can't act. He can think, but he can't communicate. He could get an idea but he couldn't tell anyone. Get the idea? Well, that's another state. But it's merely a composite of existing states.

Well, as an auditor if you have a vast fear of psychos and you think psychosis is something terribly catching that you're liable to get, you know you'll never do anything for a psycho. You're so individuated from the psycho that you can't communicate with him. And all you can do is wham away at his bank and take an ax to it. That's why psychiatrists use things like prefrontal lobotomies, transorbital leukotomies, electric shocks, all of these other nonsenses and they've had records for years that told them these things didn't do anything for anybody.

Every time you electric shock somebody, why, he's all right for maybe six months, two years or something like that, and then he has to go back and get another electric shock and aah-hah, then he will get another electric shock, and each time he's not quite as well, and aaah-ahh – another electric shock, and there he's had it. And all of a sudden he's in apathy: a public charge.

I knew one of these famous cures that was being advertised in the United States, repeated electric shocks – the man had been cured of schizophrenia. He was totally cured. And actually he was taken around on a tour, psychiatry showed him off in all directions to all hospitals and so forth as an attestation of how wonderful electric shock was.

And they gave it in the literature but apparently didn't think it was important that the man was head of one of the largest advertising agencies on Madison Avenue before he was treated, and after being treated couldn't hold down any higher job than janitor. He was cured, was he? Cured of what? Well, they couldn't possibly have cured him of anything, all they did was suppress him so he didn't exhibit anything anymore.

Well, that would be an overt attack on the bank, and submergence of the pc, and the bank which is some new valence – probably the psychiatrist. And basically that is the goal of psychoanalysis, is to transfer the personality of the analyst to the patient.

A lot of you think I kid you about this, about these goals, but you actually have to go and crack the textbooks and talk to some of these birds and then you'll find out that I'm giving about the mildest version anybody could give you.

Whole track psychiatry was something to be respected. I'd respect a whole track psychiatrist, he knew what he was doing. He knew he was trying to kill off everybody and get everybody under control.

The modern psychiatrist pretends he's helping everybody while killing them all off. And he himself is probably very sincere, he probably studied it, and so on, and spins in eventually.

You're flinching every time you individuate off of and say, "Well, I wouldn't care to have any of that. "Well, it isn't – you don't have to sit around and say, "Well, I'd just as soon have something of that. You know, I'd just as soon be crazy."

Psychiatrists run this one too. They're shooting everybody these days with LSD 25, or that's – I think is the number of a landing craft. But they are effectively trying to make nurses crazy so they can understand the insane and so on.

Insanity just is itself, there isn't any reason to be insane. I admit that it's pretty hard to (quote) understand (unquote) the incomprehensible. Unless you, yourself, have no compulsion in you to always close terminals with the incomprehensible. And if you, yourself, insist on closing terminals with the incomprehensible then you're going to worry sooner or later about insanity.

Insanity is the composite of never having any answers become successful. The fellow has tried all the answers and he doesn't have any left, so he spins.

You can spin somebody just like that, you can show him time after time that the answers he has are wrong, see, you can keep showing him his answers are wrong. I wouldn't say that any Instructor in any Academy has done this, but I've seen instructors in universities do this. They do it to young writers. They have them write a theme or an essay and then turn it in, and they send it back and show him how it's wrong, and they tell the guy he has got to write another one, and they tell him how it's wrong, give it back to him, tell him how it's wrong and after a while the guy won't create anything, you know. They ruin more writers that way. They just keep telling him he doesn't have any answers. And do you know, the person eventually becomes a little bit crazy on the subject of writing, just a little bit crazy. They're not quite sure. They get funny feelings about it when they sit down to write. They try to do this to professional writers, but of course, as a professional writer I always had an answer. I always told the editor if he capriciously rejected one of my manuscripts, why, I'd knock his block off, see. It always worked.

You think I'm kidding now! That worked.

Now, where we have understanding we don't have obsessive terminal snaps. Where we have understanding we have a rather calm, relaxed, effective state of mind. Where we have comprehension of what's going on, why, we can look it over, and we can also do something about it. But don't try to do anything about something you don't understand.

Did you ever take a watch apart that you didn't know how it went back together again?

Well now, as long as you've been around Dianetics and Scientology you've come to believe that there are many, many operating parts of the mind and it'd be absolutely almost impossible for somebody to know all these operating parts of the mind. Or, maybe you haven't come to that opinion. But there are actually very few, and they consist of these: there's the thetan and his creations, and that's it. Those are the operating parts of the mind.

Oh, you say, but what about the physical universe? I included it. I included it.

Now, when you talk about mind in terms of doing something about it, you mean that undisclosed portion of a thetan's mock-ups which surround him and are giving him trouble. Right? So, your target of all of this is relatively small, and the complexities of that target are very few, very few. They consist of his postulates, and the matter, energy, space, time, ideas, and the various mechanisms which interassociate these events or these actions or objects. Even a machine is covered under matter, energy, space and time plus ideas.

You get so very intrigued with the super significances of how the little wheels go around that you very often are unwilling to look at a mental machine and simply just say, "Well, that's a mental machine." Of course, the first time you ever see a mental machine I can agree with you. It's – they're something to watch, you know. There's a lot of them walking up and down the street. They're really something to watch – mental machines.

You normally can read it on a meter when you're looking at a machine too. They have certain definite reactions.

You'll think of it first as a limited device. But what's limited about the device is either its manufacture and those which you're using are not limited in manufacture, or your knowledge of how to use it. You have an almost total looker or visualizer in an E-Meter, knowing what's in the fellow's mind, you with an E-Meter hooked up to him – you already know the parts of his mind, you see – and you hook up an E-Meter to this. If you can't find out then what's going on, when, how, which, where, name, rank and serial number from there on out, by the time we are about ten days deep into this course, I'll be ashamed of you! Because it's too easy!

And the only reason you ever find it difficult is because you're trying to – you can't believe that the mind is this simple! And that's what everybody has had trouble with. And the reason the great philosophers of all time never got anywhere, and the reason the great names of history never got anyplace is it took a simple idiot like me, you see, to come along and take a look at it. And there isn't anything else in it.

You can take it on my say-so until you find out for yourself, but believe me, I've paraded up and down, back and forth and around practically any mind there is in existence on this planet by this time and I haven't found anything else in it at all, but ideas, masses, energies, spaces, times and significant combinations thereof. 'Tisn't even haunted in most cases.

So, given into your paws a functioning E-Meter and comfort with that, looking into the mind of your pc, finding out what ails him, and straightening that out only requires from you, as I say, an understanding of it on your part, a realization that you don't have to be compulsively separate from it or compulsively identified with it to do anything with it. Doesn't – you don't have to think the right thought in order to process somebody. You know, you don't have to have a – the attitude of first we say to Kali so-and-so and so-and-so and then we do so-and-so and so-and-so, and if we think the right monotoned thought… No, no, that requires nothing like that. We just have to know we know and we can take it and do almost anything we want with it. And that's about all it takes, that's about all it takes.

It's tremendously interesting because nobody would believe that this many significances could attach themselves to this few parts.

But once you've seen that, and after you've looked for a while and found nothing new in it, and you've been able to read over what it is and handle it – oh, this doesn't say that people don't have bad intentions and good intentions and this way and – those are ideas, fixed ideas in one way or the other. This doesn't say there isn't variety to this mind, but it's variety of the same thing. Like 149,000 dishes all made out of spaghetti. You see?

And you with confidence of this and ability to address the situation, ability to understand it, and on your part, no big compulsion that you just mustn't ever permit this sort of thing to exist and you mustn't ever permit that sort of thing to exist, and the reason you've got to audit him is because it just must never happen again and so forth. And you get in there trying to not-create, not-create, not-create, and you'll knock your brains out after a while!

And that's the only thing then that's left for us really to solve here.

Now, I'm going to give you a lot of auditing demonstrations. I'm going to give you some very relaxed demonstrations. That's going to give your Instructors trouble, because they're going to come around afterwards and say, "Where's your confronting? And where's your this and where's your that?"

And you're going to be able to say, "Well, Ron wasn't confronting very much." Something like that.

But just the same I'm going to show you how easy this thing is. And then casewise this is what we're going to do with you. We're going to blow you up as far toward OT as we can get you without blowing you to pieces.

Now, I don't guarantee this will be all the way. I don't guarantee it will be halfway. If we just got you to a state where you'd register MEST Clear we'd be doing something. We're going to try to push you all the way up. And how far we get, well, that's up to us and up to you.

Maybe you'll be able to go out of here being able to mock up camels over on Parliament steps. And maybe you'll go out of here wishing to God you'd never been mocked up in the first place.

But I know with the technology that I've had to do with here and have been checking out for this ACC – for release during this ACC – there's an awful lot of new stuff during the last two, three months. If anybody is going to make up his mind that nothing is going to happen to him, now is the time to make up his mind.

Well, I hope I've given you the size, shape and attitude of this ACC. You think I have?

Audience: Yes!

All right, let's see if we can carry it out.

Thank you.

[Editor's Note: reference to the Melbourne Congress lectures given by L. Ron Hubbard, 7-8 November 1959, released on cassette as "The Principles of Creation."]

[Editor's Note: The lecture being referred to is "Recent Developments on OT"delivered 7 November 59 at the Melbourne Congress by L. Ron Hubbard.]

THE KNOW-HOW OF AUDITING PAGE 14 1MACC-01 – 9.11.59

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1MACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1959]]