View source for Man's Search and Scientology's Answer (FC 570704)

'''Series:''' Freedom Congress (FC)

'''Date:''' 04 July 1957

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_FC|Back to Series]]

Well, we got a congress here?
Audience voices: Yeah.
Ah, that didn't sound like we had a congress. Do we have a congress here?
Audience voices: Yes!
Good! Now, I'll give you the way an acknowledgment really gets through now.
Good. Very good.
Audience voice: Okay.
It... see? It got through.
We started this congress, you know, with a group intensive - first three days of this
week, and we apparently did something in that. There was one person in that that got
a thirty-nine-point IQ rise, and the average IQ rise was fourteen points in those three
days of Tone 40 Group Auditing.
Now, most of the people that were in that group intensive were actually old Scien-
tologists. There were not too many brand-new people in that group. And to get a
fourteen-point IQ rise as an average across a group which contains a lot of people
who have been mined, plumbed, sifted and IQ risen practically out of this world, is
utterly fantastic.
This by the way, was an interesting adventure, because these people who were going
to do this Group Processing, walked into it saying, „Well, Group Processing! Ha-ha-ha-ha!
There's nothing to Group Processing! Well, that's all well. Group Process-processed them by the thou-
sands! You know Nothing to it:“
They were handed an HCO Bulletin, that's Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin,
giving Group Processing intensive, as written up two or three months ago, which was
really - and it didn't say so on it - Tone 40 Group Processing, CCH on a group. That's
what that realty was.
They walked in here; they first went down to a big building that we'd gotten for the
Advanced Clinical Unit and threw their voices around in there, trying to get the inten-
tion instantaneous and so forth. And they said, „Well, we ... it's all right - group. We've got
it made in the shade.“
And they started out with the group - it was the first time they had run Tone 40 proc-
essing on a group; getting that intention into every skull. And if the person wasn't
there - back of his head. And getting that acknowledgment through every time. Al-
most killed them for the first half-hour. But within two-three hours of the beginning
of that intensive these old-time auditors who really know their stuff anyhow, had it
grooved. So, you too could do this if you're willing to die a little at first.
I also want to thank all those people who took that group intensive. Thank you.
Now, we have ourselves a lot of things we could talk about, lot of things that we
could talk about this congress, awful lot of people we could introduce, lot of things
we could do, lot of things we could say.
But I think the foremost thing that we should say is, thank you, all of you, who over
the years or even recently have carried the ball and done the work, and spread the
word of Dianetics and Scientology. And thank you from me to you. Thank you very
much.
Audience voices: You're welcome.
Man has been looking for a very long time for answers.
Fellow by the name of Diogenes used to prowl around Athens or Sparta or London
or someplace. He used to go around in a barrel, they said, or something like that. He
had a lantern. Well, Walt Disney, I suppose he's done this, and some of the kiddy
books would tell you that he was trying to find an honest man. Really that was just
one of his gags. He had gags and so forth.
The truth of the matter is, Diogenes went around with a lantern in broad daylight, and
all he wanted to find was answers to his questions.
And his questions concerned where life came from and how it did arid where it was
going and what was the nature of man. And a few other propounding preponderances
that were utterly horrible. And nobody answered him for a couple of thousand years.
But, Diogenes, whoever you are now, we're ready for you! We have answers to your
questions.
Man has been looking for a very, very long time, As I say like Diogenes, he has
searched really with a lantern in broad daylight. The answers was all ... were all there,
all he had to do was look.
But people would rather figure-figure evidently and argue with Professor Snodgrass
on his misinterpretation of Professor Fromptf than to look at life and find out what it
was all about.
There are at this moment good friends of mine who became too successful with
Dianetics and who just say, „Well, Dianetics was fine. Dianetics is fine. Dianetics works, we
know that. But this Scientology, we're pretty doubtful of it. Now, why did Ron change anyhow?“
Now you hear that; you hear it quite a bit.
To go into why the change was made is not germane. But I have recently read one of
these good friends of mine - they're still friends of mine, believe me, that's for sure -
and he said, „This business about theta is uncertain. But everything else in Scientology is vali-
dated.“
Well, he's been going around in broad daylight with a lantern. It never evidently oc-
curred to him that the subject that we study, that those things which we embrace are
walking down the boulevard and revolving around the sun and coming off the assem-
bly lines of Detroit and being snapped by photographers every day. That is the sub-
ject.
Philosophy is not the subject. Epistemology - ontology, I think they call it. There's
1862 different names for nothingness, and their composite was the field of philoso-
phy. People went into the field of philosophy to find answers to the mind which was
sitting right in front of their faces. That's something like going down - well, not quite -
I was going to say going down to the Capitol to look at the zoo.
To go one way to look at something which is right there is quite interesting. And we
come to the conclusion that man has been running a tremendous avoidance of the
subject of man, and if we have done anything we have simply broken through this
avoidance and we have taken a square look.
Now right this moment I'm going to give you an example which shouldn't wind up
with the uncertainty on the subject of theta. Theta, as you know, is merely a mathe-
matical symbol, as it represents an awareness of. awareness somethingness. But I'll
give you a demonstration right now and show you how difficult it is. Now, we could
read tomes, we could study telekinesis, we could - or telekinesis. I'm very very shaky
on these things. As a matter of fact I should have read a book on this subject, but ...
But I remember vividly reading a book on this subject - as a matter of fact I read quite
a few books on this subject many years ago-and I was sitting there, I wasn't feeling
very well at the time, and I was sitting there and I was reading books of philosophy,
you know, and... As a matter of fact I have a book now written by - The Remarks
Made by Plotinus, I think it is, and we use it in Book Mimicry.
Now, I read these books, and I kept reading them and I read some more books and I
had some more books on philosophy over here and I read all those books and I stud-
ied all those books over here. And I got a five-foot shelf of books on philosophy and
I read those books, and so forth. And I found out after a while what I was doing - I
was reading books. So I decided to study the mind instead. In other words, to go to
this degree of via, to study all the philosophers, all the religious leaders, all of the mes-
siahs and savants of all times and ages to find out what makes things tick is just about
as silly as buying a manual describing the repairs on a Cadillac but never riding in one.
Now, there is the facts of a case.
All we've really done is short-circuit this thing to a good look. And we find the world
in which we live is susceptible to understanding and doesn't function unless we un-
derstand it.
We find all of these various attitudes, ideas, misinterpretations of interpersonal rela-
tionships, of various works of man, his various activities and so on are tremendously
interesting, but they aren't a direct observation.
Now, true enough in Scientology we have done an awful lot of describing, but as a
description on a brand-new level of action. What I describe in a book you can look
for and find at once. And a book on Scientology is not a book of philosophy to air
the erudite and aesthetic opinions of LRH. It is a road map of where it is, what it is -
if you want to look at it. And the end product is not reading a book. The end product
is taking a look at it.
Now, the only reason a road map is necessary is because so many phony road maps
have been issued. And a book on Scientology becomes necessary if one has had the
misfortune of being educated in the twentieth century in a public school.
Female voice: I agree.
You've been told all sorts of things - via-via-via, wiggle-wiggle, alter-is, not-is. And a
book on Scientology is a road map out of a morass of „don't looks.“ Do you see that?
That's all it is.
But we have achieved a subject then. But the subject itself embraces life and the sub-
ject of the subject is life: livingness, actingness, doingness, beingness, and havingness.
Now that is the subject of Scientology.
The subject of Scientology is not Professor Fromptf's contradiction of Professor
Snodgrass's Phrumpfs. It is not a learned dissertation on how many angels can stand
on the head of a pin.
I ran across a book the other day which was used until recently by a very large and
profitable organization. I think it has - its central organization is in, just a minute,
don't tell me - its central organization, it's someplace over in Europe. A lot of our
troops took it recently, but they left this central organization alone. I don't know why.
Rome, that's right - Rome. I knew it was some town where the plumbing was sort of
outside.
And they talk all about demon exorcism. But I assure you, they had to invent the de-
mon before they could exorcise him.
There is a great deal of material of a discursive nature on whether or not man is going
to go to heaven or going to go to hell. And a lot of attempts to put in his hands some
sort of a road map that will take him to either place. But the key question has never
been asked: Is there heaven? Is there hell?
I've been looking recently and I can't find them.
Imagine the disappointment of somebody who kicks off, well aware of having led an
exemplary life, gets a knock all ready, and can't find any Pearly Gates. He would then
feel he was rather lost. Just as you would feel lost if you were told to go to Brump-
fville and nobody had ever built it. But that's no reason for an individual to believe
he's wrong just because he can't find Brumpfville. The question is: Is there such a
town?
Now if somebody wants to come up and say, „Look, here's a road map: You take two turns
to the right; three good turns to the left; three pennies in the collection plate; and a couple of Ave
Marias - and there's the Pearly Gates.“ If somebody comes up with that, I follow the di-
rections, I arrive at the Pearly Gates; I'll go back and shake him by the hand.
But I've read several road maps on the subject recently, exteriorized rather neatly -
went around. As near as I can find out somebody fell into one of the volcanoes out in
the South Pacific or something one time, and got an idea that hell existed. But I don't
know what kind of a shape a thetan would be in to be bothered by a little heat!
These road maps that man has been given to read all had a pitch. They had a pitch -
they were to make him be good for somebody else's benefit but not his own. That is
my opinion, for what it's worth. To make him produce for somebody else - not him-
self.
All of these road maps have been written out of a misguided idea that you have to
have slaves. And I've seen slaves around, and I've never found them doing anything
but giving trouble. Man cannot afford slavery.
It isn't whether or not slavery is bad or slavery is good, or whether it's esoteric or
against the Emancipation 24th Amendment, or the 29th, or which ever one that is.
That is not the point.
The point is, can people afford to have slavery in their vicinity? On a national level,
can any nation afford to have a poor, bunged-up neighbor? No. Can any nation afford
to wreck the government of another nation? No.
Just a passing glance at this, look at the French Revolution. The stable government of
France was overthrown; her neighbors kept that government in a turbulence by de-
claring war and making pressure and so forth. There was a broad world war grew out
of that at the end of the eighteenth century. When France started to go out of control
none of her neighbors, England, or the rest of them, reached out and said, „Let's put it
back together again. Let's get the controls lined up so we have a more equitable exercise of the gov-
ernment of France.“ They didn't do that, and as a result they were living with a psycho
for fifteen or twenty years. It was causing war on every side. Two generations of the
manhood of Europe were eaten up in the flames of the uncontrolled hysteria of
France.
Now, France, herself, was eaten up because she founded her economy on a sort of
slavery. And other nations around her were able to sit with great aplomb and watch
the feudal slave state go on and on and on, to see man tromped into the mud and
dust. They paid for it after a while.
No nation on the face of earth can afford to loosen the power of another nation. No
war ever earned anything but war. And anytime you loosen the control over himself
and his environment of another human being, you get the same circumstances. You
get somebody that you can't live around.
And what is slavery but the substitution of one area of controls for the proper area of
controls. We take a human being who should be able to control himself and his envi-
ronment and we put him in chains and we tell him that he is now totally controlled!
And he mustn't breathe or spit without some kind of a government permit. And we
say, „Ah, this is the way to go about it. This is the way to have a civilization.“
Oh no, it is not. That is the way to have chaos! And man cannot afford slavery. He
cannot afford duress. He can't afford to tear his fellow man to pieces if he wishes to
live any kind of a life at all.
There is nothing wrong with the world today, except the world believes in duress and
slavery as a method of possession.
No, it's a very simple thing. It's a very simple picture. Let's look what this has done to
the entire study of the mind. A study which came up from Chaldea. A study which
came through all of the ages of Asia.
Every time somebody who’d come up with a little idea that had some notion of what
it was all about, there was always somebody standing there ready to take that little idea
and use it as a control mechanism on somebody else, and enhance slavery, but not
man.
In other words, somebody would try to look at this, and then the next thing you know
anything that was discovered would be used to make slaves.
Let's take a poor, innocent little goof who really must have had something. You
know, he was not a man of stupidity; he was a man of some genius - a fellow named
Pavlov. Interesting fellow. He left government alone, he didn't have anything to do
with government, he went down to one corner of Russia there someplace, and he had
a hard time. He eventually got some money and he experimented on dogs.
And all he was trying to do was change training patterns by identification. And he had
the whole idea of conditioning identification. He was creating engrams every day, but
he missed the whole subject. But he was all right. He had dogs, and he was happy, and
the dogs slavered when he rang bells, and it was very useful material.
Nobody around the Red Square - because he lived on after the revolution - said to
themselves, „You know, we have an enormous number of men, women and children out here to
control. We're a government. These people have got to be clothed and fed and sheltered. There's been a
revolution, and we've got to get things going again, we've got to put them back together again. Let's see
what Pavlov could teach us that we could employ in our effort to make these people happy, to make
them better people.“
No, no. No, no. The Kremlin didn't do that. The Kremlin wrote Mr. Pavlov a letter.
And they said, „Dear Mr. Pavlov, You come and see us. We are going to fix you up. We are going
to give you laboratories. If you don't come voluntarily, we're going to bring you back on active service.“
Undoubtedly Mr. Pavlov bad reached a considerable understanding of some of the
factors of behavior, and so a chap by the name of - I don't know what his name was.
He called himself Stalin, he's dead now. Wonderful how beams work. And this fellow,
Stalin, put him in a little corner of the Kremlin, and he says, „Professor, write me a manu-
script that tells me how to employ on human beings every slavery mechanism that you have found in
working with dogs.“
And Pavlov wrote a four - he didn't know any better - he wrote a four-hundred-page
manuscript. He didn't throw Stalin into session as any of us would have done. He
didn't say „Well, I'll have to give you a demonstration here, Mr. Stalin, I mean, I can't just write
this stuff out. It would be meaningless. I'd have to give you a demonstration. Here's a couch,” see,
„The somatic strip will go back to birth.“
He didn't do that. He didn't know how. But he did write this manuscript - four-
hundred-page manuscript. And ever since that time, this undoubtedly valuable piece
of know-how about human behavior and animal behavior has been employed exclu-
sively to extract confessions from human beings as to how they have injured the Red
state, or why they should at once desert some other control factor and join up in
some fashion.
In other words, it's been totally misused and they've made slaves with it. And we call
that today „brainwashing“ and that's where brainwashing comes from. All brainwashing
is, is getting a person to identify beyond reason. Any time you can get somebody to
identify beyond reason, you've brainwashed him. It has nothing to do with scrubbing
brushes; they sure could have employed some.
But here, here is this whole ... this whole panorama of thousands of years all in vi-
gnette. Here we have Pavlov writing what he knew, and the material then being used
for the enslavement of his fellow man. In other words they give it a big pitch. They
colored it. They didn't want anything to do with making people happy, making people
free. They wanted nothing to do with that at all.
And yet, who knows? Russia, which at this moment is failing, might well have become
a successful experiment and therefore a successful nation had she taken people like
Pavlov and said, „What do you boy's know? Now, how can this be used to free from slavery - the
slavery of superstition, the slavery of indolence - the Russian people?“ But they never made that
request.
We didn't wait for somebody to make the request, we're just going ahead and doing
the job. That's the best way to go about it, by the way.
A road map is only necessary because every time a truth has been discovered hereto-
fore, it has evidently been put to a misuse of further slavery and greater duress, and
therefore the whole track is booby-trapped.
We don't know what Gautama Siddhartha really said 625 B.C. We don't know what
Buddha said. Because I can assure you that if you tell somebody ... if you tell some-
body to do what a Buddhist is supposed to do - sit there for twenty years or some-
thing - he'll ossify.
Now, maybe, maybe Buddha said something. Undoubtedly he released considerable
truths or he wouldn't have had that much popularity. His word would not have
reached across the greater bulk of mankind. Buddhism would not be today one of the
great religions of earth if it had all been lies.
But how was it used? Exactly how was it used? Well, somebody must have thrown a
few curves into it. Somebody must have thrown a few pitches on the line. There must
have been something rearranged in Buddhism. Because I can tell you by personal ex-
perience it doesn't work.
As a matter of fact there is one paragraph Buddha is quoted as saying that contains in
it a prohibition against using practically every factor there is in CCH! It said you
mustn't think on separateness or nonseparateness, and you mustn't think on this and
that. And he took each one of these and he made up a series of about twelve di-
chotomies, and things that just - you must have nothing to do about. And if you could
just conceive of mind essence you were all set.
And I refer you to Creation of Human Ability: „Conceive a static...“ And it says, „Under
no conditions run this as a process.“ Ask somebody to look at nothing. Ask somebody to
look at mind essence and study it and drool over it and concentrate on it. And his
havingness will go up in smoke. And his ability to control himself will go by the
boards. That's quite interesting, isn't it?
Now, I think that there was something thrown into the channel. I think the water in
that stream was dirtied for somebody's profit. Therefore, it is of interest that what we
now know remain clearly in view as a workable situation, as a workable activity. That
is what is in ... I am engaged on right now: what we know is being codified in such a
way that it can continue to be used without a lot of interpretations.
The exercises and drills which make up the TRs, for instance, are very, very easy to
grasp, very easy to repeat. Nothing to it, they are very simple - to do them is some-
thing else. But to describe them is very simple.
Now, your subjective reality on the universe doesn't lie over there eighteen light-years
or eighteen miles away. Your own subjective reality on the universe and your own ob-
jective reality are viewed right from where you sit right this minute. And that's the
subject of our study.
Now I'm going to show you something here. This is a little gag. Now, I see some
auditors are going to be going home to their groups and friends and so on; they'll be
playing this gag on them, I know this. This is a lead-pipe cinch.
I did this in London, and it was once being done all over the place.
It goes like this. I want you to cooperate with me here a little bit - will you?
Audience voices: Yes.
All right.
Now, I want you to take a look at the parts of man. Now, in Scientology: The Fun-
damentals of Thought, it says the parts of man are body, mind, thetan. See, that's very
esoteric. And it describes them at some length.
Now, let's not worry about Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought, I want you to no-
tice at this moment that you have a body there. Now, do you have a body?
Audience voices: Yes.
You do have a body there?
Audience voices: Yes.
There is a body sitting there in the chair?
Audience voices: Yes.
You have noticed this?
Audience voices: Yes.
All right, that's the body part of it. Got that now?
Audience voices: Yes. Now, maybe there are a few occluded cases or invisible cases
around and we won't worry about those particularly. But I am going to ask you to get
a picture of a cat.
Audience voices: Okay.
Got a picture of a cat?
Audience voices: Yes
All right. Now, you notice that's a mental image picture of a cat. Is that right?
Audience voices: That's right.
Hm? Now, can you go further than this and get a picture of a cat you have seen, or is
that one?
Audience voices: Yes.
Get a picture of a cat you have seen?
Audience voices: Yes.
Notice that that is a mental image picture. You got it?
Audience voices: Yes.
Got that now?
Audience voices: Yes.
You see that?
Audience voices: Yes.
All right. That's the mind! The mind is a collection of pictures and automaticities hav-
ing to do with pictures, and you have just looked at the total subject of the mind.
These pict - Now, various things can be in these pictures - and the pictures can be
different, but in final analysis they're pictures. You got that? The pictures can get
squashed, and they get lopsided, but you're looking at the mind - that's it. There isn't
anything else there. There is the machinery that handles them and the pictures them-
selves. All right, now, have you got the mind?
Audience voices: Yes
Got the mind?
Audience voices: Yes.
All right. Now, let's get that first picture of the cat back - would you please?
Audience voices! Yes.
Hm? What's looking at it?
Audience voices: I am.
That's a thetan. See that now? All right, now you've got a body. You had a picture...
Audience voices: Yes.
And you found out something was looking at a picture, didn't you?
Audience voices: Yes.
Or something was looking at something.
Audience voices: Yes.
Now, you have the subjective attitude of the thetan when you look at the picture. But
let's go to just one other attitude of the thetan, the only other attitude of the thetan,
and that is this.
Let's look at these curtains.
Audience voices: Yes.
Now, you to some degree believe that your eyes are looking at them. That I know.
Are your eyes looking at them?
Audience voices: No. Yes. No.
Well, are you looking at them?
Audience voices: Yes.
Well, all right. What's looking at them?
Audience voices: Me!
Well, that's a thetan, Honest. I needn't give you another word of lecture throughout
the next four days, for today and the next three days. That is it! Those are the three
things that we can most easily experience. And I gave you the fourth, which was the
first... I mean, the thetan and the objective universe, and that became the fourth one,
didn't it?
****** Page 21 is missing in the book, here.********
So there's the objective universe, of which these curtains are a part, I assure you, and
this body is too, it's kicked around so much - its solid by the way today. [sound of cur-
tains being moved] Pretty good, huh? I did that just for you.
But the objective universe includes as a specialization other body-mind-thetan combi-
nations who you see mostly as the objective universe, do you understand? So you see
people walking around, live things walking around and so on, and what you're looking
at is simply this same combination I just showed you.
The three most intimate items - you have a body, you've got a mental image picture,
that's the mind, and what was looking at it - that's a thetan. And then you have the
rest of the universe, and it has the specialized item in it of other thetan-body-mind
combinations who also see this agreed upon area we know as the physical universe.
Now, if we go into the field of special abilities, whether or not we can make the mind
stand over here at 35 degrees, whether or not we can mockup spaceships out here
that run, whether or not we can hypnotize or goof in some fashion a politician, these
are all doingnesses, doingnesses by which we change location and consideration with
regard to the four items we have just called off. And that's all doingness is, unfortu-
nately.
Cross your legs the other way way to. Did you do that?
Audience voices: Yeah.
Physical universe change?
Audience voices: Yeah.
Well what do you know! Now cross 'em back this way.
Audience voices: Yeah.
Physical universe change?
Audience voices: Yeah.
Interesting isn't it? We changed it, didn't we?
Audience voices: Yeah.
So we get this doingness which requires only control - start, change, and stop. Well
that's the entirety of the subject. I don't know why I go on discussing it, it's too sim-
ple.
Well in actuality, it is that simple, but the funny part of it is - there isn't really a person
present that believes it's that simple.
You could tell me about lumbago and goiters and the uncontrollability of cats and
politicians, kings and coal heavers, couldn't you? You could tell me, then, about what?
Difficulties with the doingness of these four areas. The difficulties with the doingness
simply add up to non-control, don't they?
Isn't that nasty? All of these beautiful problems you have. All these lovely problems
your going to lay in the lap of auditors some time or another. All these problems
you're gonna audit out of other preclears. Your problems that you audit out of the
other preclear (laughter) - really have to be audited out. Because they violate a direct
look, a direct contact, a positive ability to control and let control, because these things
obscure your view of the four items I mentioned.
Now how many classes of things would there be that obscure the view? Ha! You
name it (laugh)!
Your ability is nowhere more greatly demonstrated then your ability to throw up diffi-
culties and obfiscations! You're good at it!
You might not be able to see across your bedroom in the middle of the night, or the
front of that podium, but you could think of a difficulty. Well, that should strike you
as very strange that you could think of difficulties to this degree - but it's true that you
can. Well, you must have Q-and-Aed with people that told you difficulties were very
necessary. You must have bought a bill of goods someplace that in order to study the
mind you must first study telekinesis. In order to study the mind you must first be an
expert in ontology. In order to study the mind you must first be able to cut out ap-
pendices. That's the present law.
And these first must-be-able-to's, particularly when they disappear out of sight and
you can't remember what they are, become the anatomy of difficulties. You first must
be able to do this. You first must be able to do that. You first must be able to ... And
then you forget all of these firsts, and know there is something that you should do
first before you do this, but you can't remember what that is, so of course you never
do this.
And one day you're driving down the street and you forget one of these now-I'm-
supposed-to's and you don't turn the wheel quite far enough or something of the sort,
and you run up on the curb and have a flat tire or something. And you say, „Now why
did I do that?“ Well, there isn't any „why you did that.“ There is no reason you did that.
There were too many reasons and you did it.
So, if you keep adding reasons, you get nothing but difficulties. All we need is a few
more reasons - just a few more reasons why we have to have and test this A-bomb,
just a few more reasons why. Just a few more now-I'm-supposed-to's, which then bur-
ied out of sight make a complete complexity and utter obfuscation of the entire pic-
ture.
And I come along and I say to you, „Have you got a body there?“
You say, „Yes.“
I say, „Mock up a cat. Have you got a picture there?“
„Yes.“
I say, „That's the mind.“ I say, „What's looking at it?“
You say. „Huh. I am.“
Well, that's a thetan.
And, actually the one thing you're liable to know best is it couldn't be this simple. But
that's all that's wrong: you know that it couldn't be that simple.
Now, processing is addressed to the perfection of control, the perfection of commu-
nication, the better observation of or creation of things to communicate with and
things to control. Thus we get what we call CCH. And all the Training Drills we have
simply amount to this today. We say; „Do it right now, in present time, 100 percent.“ And
we've got gradient scales of things a person can do that way and he gradually comes
up to a point where he can do a direct observation or execute a direct control or
communication right now with it, without further vias. It almost kills him but he can
do it.
Processing and training would amount to the same thing, but they are both addressed
to the same things.
How long does it take for a person to become disabused of complexity, vias, varied
reasons why, causations without number? How long does it take a person to he dis-
abused of these things? Well, that's how long he has to be trained or processed, as the
establishing factor.
It's all very well for you to say, „Well, ha-ha! All right. I heard what you said, Ron, and all I
am going to do is I'm just going to make up my mind, and I am going to put it right through right
there in present time, I am going to look at things right now. I am going to throw my glasses away
and everything is fine. Heh!“
You have enfranchised some devils and demons of one kind or another, some auto-
maticities and some vias, that you have given carte blanche to. You have said these
things now have priority above all other things - including my present opinion! So,
you have to get over the idea that they have power too, and sometime that takes a lit-
tle time.
You speak right now in present time as I am speaking to you. A great big healthy
ridge moves in and hits you in tie nose. You say, „This was not in the rule books. Ron spe-
cifically said - - .“
Well, Ron might have said something, but you said something a long time before I
said it, and that was, „This ridge is going to move in and hit me in the nose any time I get cocky
enough to believe that I'm close to perfect.“ Some such postulate is in the ridge. You got
cocky enough to say, „Well, I can do it right now without any difficulty at all.“
And it says, „Right now! - doomp!“
And when you find these things the only other thing you have to discover is, is they
really don't bite thetans. And when you discover that a thetan can't be bitten, you are
a Homo Novis or a Clear or a „have“ or whatever else one might be called; and that
would be the absolute end goal. Not nothing - that is not the end goal of Scientology -
not the reduction of everything to nothing. Some people think it is, you know. But it
is simply high directive communication, excellent control in the four spheres which I
have just shown to you. And that would be the end goal of Scientology.
The subject of Scientology is livingness. You are looking at it. You are it. And I'd bet-
ter give you an intermission.
Thank you. Thank you.
[end of lecture]

[[Category:Lectures FC]]