View source for Parts of the 3D Package (CHC 611230)

'''Series:''' CHC

'''Date:''' 30 December 1961

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_CHC|Back to Series]]

Thank you. I have always threatened to bring notes. And actually you realize these congresses would not be possible, and these lectures would not be possible, without notes, although you always keep them for me.

I suppose you're curious about this new 3D package. I think it might be a very good thing to talk something about. Would you like to hear something about it?

Audience: Yes.

The difficulties of processing a person are extremely complicated by the fact that this person has been playing a game, and I should tell you a bit about that. I think that might be a very good idea.

Anyhow, I want to tell you something about 3D. 3D. You've had Clears. We can make Clears, but not everybody goes Clear. Why? Because it isn't possible to key some people out of the mess they're in. If you can key a person out, you can clear them. If you can leave the litter on the backtrack and park it on the backtrack, you can clear them. // you can.

The person can park this material on the backtrack, key it out, and maybe it'll key in in a century, and maybe in a week, and maybe six months or maybe ten years. Who knows when it'll key back in again, but that is the limited status of Clear, and that is the status of Clear and that is what happens to Clears and that's all there is to it. You key this stuff out, you put it on the backtrack, they are in wonderful shape for some momentary period of time, not finite. They are never as bad off as they were before, but they will slump. Why? Because the stuff can key back in again.

It isn't as serious as it might sound; it doesn't mean that Clear isn't a state which is desirable – it is a state which is desirable. But let's compare that now that – now that we know that fact. I found it out. I didn't know that you all had these masses because some of you were sufficiently blind you couldn't see them. I'll call your attention to these black masses as of 8-80 – 19-God-knows-when. Remember way back then.

And a lot of you came up and said, "Well, I never saw any of these – what you talk about, black masses; I never saw anything – black masses. There's nothing wrong with me. I look around and I just see nothing. There's nothing everyplace." So I couldn't prove conclusively that there was such a thing as a mass in the reactive mind. I couldn't prove this. It was very difficult because the perception of people was not up to the observation of this sort of thing. That was what was necessary.

Now, it has become evidential that nobody would be in the shape he is in unless these masses did not [did] exist in the reactive mind – period! It is the phenomenon which retains a person's status quo and keeps him parked at the bottom of the Tone Scale. That is what it is. It's unhandleable masses.

Now, we have gone a step beyond pictures. Interesting? Now, we're into processing of masses of pictures. And everybody has these things.

Now, you can key those things out and lay them aside and park them over – 1954,I think, London, Admiration Processing, "There are some corners of the mind which are better off left unentered." A direct quote – something like that – 53, 54 – something like that. This is all material which we have had, but there was no guarantee that everybody had these; there was no guarantee that it wasn't just an occasional phenomenon.

Well, we kept running into people who could only see blackness, or we kept running into people who could only see invisibility and who couldn't see pictures and that sort of thing and engrams and so on. And apparently uniformly a requisite of a psychiatrist or psychologist is to be totally immersed in the Goals Problem Mass, so they never see any pictures. So they say, "Only idiots and morons have pictures." Direct quote. "Only idiots and morons have pictures."

Why? Well, a review of this breed – it is a type of thetan. I am sorry to have to tell you that, but it is a type of thetan and you have got to live it down. But these characters, of course, couldn't see any masses or couldn't see any pictures. Well, why couldn't they see masses and pictures? Why couldn't they see masses and pictures? Because they were unable to perceive to that degree. They had them, but they couldn't see them, so therefore you couldn't guarantee that they had them.

Yes, but the mechanism which was residual is called the Goals Problem Mass. And that is the name which is assigned to these black masses which kick around in the bank. And that, when a person puts on weight, is what he has run into – the Goals Problem Mass. When a person has a solid, continuously unremovable somatic apparently, that is the Goals Problem Mass. When individuals are mired down in the midst of all of this, they have no perception beyond it. Their attention is totally introverted into this particular mass. Therefore, they behave behavior patterns dictated by these masses.

Now, what are these masses? They exist in the mind and the sum and substance of the reactive mind is composed entirely of these masses – period! The reactive mind of course can be monitored by pictures around on the fringes of the masses. But, if you key out the masses, then they won't affect the individual, but if they do not – are not susceptible of being keyed out, or you can not key them out or they are stuck too thoroughly in, then of course the person will go on behaving – will go on having the psychosomatics, will go on having the bad eyesight, will go on having the deafness, will go on having the pain in his back, will go on having the flat feet, will go on being a thetan in trouble, because he's up against something he can't handle. These things have been unhandleable by past technology – period. There was no handling them. The only thing you could do was key them out.

But we weren't even working consciously on the basis of heading in a direction just to key out these black masses. I was given this problem by you, by you, nobody else, of why didn't you go Clear? Why didn't certain processes clear you rapidly? Why? Why did we clear so selectively? Why only here and there could you make a Clear? Why couldn't clearing be done on a 100 percent basis?

And I will not ever settle for any figure less than that, because then I know you still have something you don't know about the mind! If you can't do it to each and every thetan as he steps up and salutes, then there's something you don't know about thetans! Right?

Audience: Yes.

And when you can't do it to any of them, you're a psychiatrist.

Now, you want to know why you have a stuck somatic? Well, why do you keep on going this way every time you try to read the signs in the distance? Why? Does it say "stop" or "60-mile-an-hour minimum?" Why, if you are a bit heavy, don't you lose your weight? Why doesn't this weight just suddenly disappear? Or is – is that – is that a problem of the GE – that belongs to the GE who is residual in the stomach and that's it? Is that just a problem of the GE? No! What are all these things about?

Why is your behavior pattern consistent, consistent, consistent? You audit somebody and he goes out and falls on his head, and you audit him and he goes out and falls on his head, and you audit him and he goes out and falls on his head, and you audit him and he goes out and falls on his head. He falls on his head a little less each time, so you're making progress. Last time he only fractured his skull; time before he put out both eyes. What is this? What is it that stops the forward progress of the mind?

Now, I tell you that there is something that stops the forward progress of the mind if only from this rationale: You as an auditor, or you as a preclear, are perfectly willing to try anything that would handle any of your difficulties. That I guarantee you. So there must be something preventing us from doing it.

And a very exhaustive study of this thing has turned up some of the most remarkable data that has ever been turned up in Scientology, and that is the existence of and the exploration of the Goals Problem Mass. They are masses of mental energy, you might say, burned down to the last notch, and nobody can get rid of the cinders. How do you handle a mass of cinders like that? Nobody can eat them, and as far as a thetan is concerned – do you know that thetans do not have dumping grounds. Do you know that? There is no place to throw stuff away. You throw it away over there four feet away and then you walk over here and it's still there four feet away, it doesn't stay over there. You drop your current body and you pick up another mock-up and you say, "Well, thank God, I got rid of that sciatica. Wow! Boy! Huh! Sure feel…"

You have been unlucky the last few lives, every body you pick up has a slight migraine. What's got the migraine? You or the body? Well, we already know that a thetan packs his own somatics and you can very often back a thetan out of his head. One more very remarkable example was backing a thetan out of his head who had coughing spells. And this thetan coughed and coughed and coughed and coughed and coughed, and there was nothing you could do about stopping this cough, you know. Until one day, we backed him back of his head and he was back of his head coughing. The body stopped coughing but he didn't. That's the truth, and that isn't just a few of them that have been like that.

Now what is this? What is it that makes the person do this? The person doesn't want to do this, but what makes him do this?

It isn't true that everybody is being willfully aberrated. Just lay that one aside. They are not. They attacked certain things at some time in their insidious past and got hung with the overt-motivator sequence and now they can't get rid of them. And in their own state unassisted, they have been totally unable to handle this ever since, so they have been in trouble. And you, as you sit there right this minute, know that I am talking the truth. You know that you have always had something that you really wished you could handle. Now, it's all right for an auditor saying, "Oh, well, he just wanted to be that way." Yeah, it's true, once. But it was so long ago that he stopped wanting to be that way. That's what we discount. He hasn't wanted to be that way for a long, long time. That's what's interesting.

Now, what is this thing? What does it consist of? Now we've had some remarkable gains in the past, and we've had some remarkable legs up on the subject of the mind. We've had some remarkable data and information, that's for sure, and this has got every one of them beat hands down. Man, that was nothing.

The anatomy of this thing, mapping the anatomy of this thing as I've done in the last, well about – actually started this line of research in February of 1961 in Johannesburg, and carried on forward and was making Clears in South Africa, and moved on along the line. And Williams was down there teaching the course and I got him pretty well genned up, and he went back to Australia, and ran some courses back there and they made some Clears there. And we were going ahead very well, and we moved forward with more and more velocity and then suddenly, somebody comes up with the idea that we ought to be making lots and scads of Clears all over the world and we were making them quite selectively. In other words, we were making people Clear who could be keyed out, that is all.

And then we move into a further lineup. We move into a further lineup. The state of Clear had a barrier that did not consist of getting, in old Routine 3, merely the right goal and the right terminal, because there was no way you could guarantee what goal you had gotten or what terminal, and you could lay your hands on an offbeat one.

Well, I had a lot of students processed and they were making progress and I was trying to make Class IIs out of them, I wasn't using them experimental. But it turned out that it would have been a waste of time at any time simply to have gone ahead on a clearing basis. That's the way it turned out. Because those that we had started in that direction – and we had gotten close to the end line of clearing – the moment that we turned them head-on, not into key-out, but head-on into the package they went clank! And any gain we'd gotten on a loosed up needle and everything in beautiful shape was lost in the twinkling of an eye. All you had to do was find what is called the modifier and everything froze up like a car run without oil. That was it. So there was all of your beautiful clearing gone. You could cancel clearing.

Well, I went ahead and did the anatomy of this thing, and I worked very hard on it and I finally got it taped. Called it the Goals Problem Mass and worked the thing out and so on. We had already had the techniques of assessment. These things had already been worked out, so I could go ahead and work out the rest of this thing. And it turns out that the Goals Problem Mass has an anatomy, and it is the anatomy of the reactive mind. Give me the anatomy and I can give you a win. Show me – show me where the bullet should enter the tiger and you will have a dead tiger, and that is all we had to know. The thing had Achilles' heels and everything else; it could be taken apart. It is an anatomy.

It's very interesting the thing – the mind would have an anatomy, a precise anatomy. And what does the Goals Problem Mass look like?

There are several items of which it is composed. The most available of these is the pc's goal. That's easily available. The next most available thing is the opposition terminal to the goal. The next most available thing is the goal of the opposition terminal. The next most available thing is the modifier of the pc's goal, and that's a very good thing to have because it's all he ever dramatizes in session. If he is doing anything offbeat in session, he is only dramatizing his modifier.

And actually, if you wanted to cure an ARC break, if it wasn't attributable strictly to withholds – the pc is sort of acting up and so forth – and you can't quite assess him very well – say his modifier to him three times and that finishes that, and he quiets right down and that's the end of that. The rudiments go in. The rudiments go in with a clank. The only thing that could be wrong with this is you have the wrong modifier.

You can have the modifier misworded or you haven't completed the modifier right or something like that. If there is anything wrong with the modifier this won't happen. But if you do have the pc's right modifier, it just – clank! That's it. It's very fascinating.

The guy is saying, "Yow, yow, yow, yow, yow! And you did this and motivator, motivator and oh, isn't it terrible, and I'm going to cut my throat and your throat," and so forth. And you say, "And raise hell with everybody and leave. And raise hell with everybody and leave. And raise hell with everybody and leave." And he says, "Okay, go on. Go on. Go on with the session."

The funny part of it is, your – it isn't making him guilty and makes him stop dramatizing. What you do is just desensitize it momentarily. But because it belongs to another entity than the pc, it of course will only desensitize. It won't run out till you run out the entity, but you can take out the kick out of it any time you want to.

Wouldn't it be interesting if you knew your boss's modifier? Wouldn't that be fascinating?

Your sales manager – he isn't making any sales, he isn't making any sales, he isn't making any sales, and you make his modifier. You know his modifier, you go into his office, you say, "And never get rid of anything and leave. And never get rid of anything and leave. And never get rid of anything and leave," and then he has a good day and makes nice profits. Fantastic, but it – that modifier of course is what they do when their goal doesn't work. If they have a failure of the goal, then the modifier goes into full action. Interesting, isn't it? So the modifier is how they get even with life if they don't win. And of course the funny part of a thetan is he always tries to win.

You know a thetan never gives up? Never! Did you know that? That's – it's most horrifying! His last revenge is to forget.

This is one of those little two-second techniques: "Who'd be upset if you forgot that?" It's very interesting. It's quite workable, you know, as a little hunt-and-punch mechanism, you know.

The fellow's – the fellow, oh, he's got a horrible headache this morning. He's got a horrible headache this morning. Well, the possibility is you could get rid of the headache just by saying, "Who'd be upset if you forgot about it?" Something on that line. "Who'd be upset if you forgot about that headache?" "Who'd be upset if you forgot about what's happened to you?" You very often watch a very 1.1 gleeful little smile come across the pc's face and he says, "My mother." That's his last possible avenue of getting even. If you can't remember your whole track you are simply getting even with somebody someplace. It's as simple as that.

All right. Now, let's go back and take a look at this Goals Problem Mass.

The next item after the modifier is the terminal. That is the pc's terminal, and those are all the parts of any one 3D package.

The parts of a 3D package then consist 100 percent of the pc's goal, the oppterm (opposition terminal), the oppgoal, the modifier and the terminal.

All right now, a bad auditor, not knowing what he's doing, and not fully trained in assessment, and not fully trained in how to put this package together, and any of us before we knew about it, could have gotten the pc's goal as the opposition goal, and could have run the pc on his opposition terminal. And that is usually what happened when a case ran forever and ever and ever on old Routine 3 clearing. It is not safe to run Routine 3 – period! There are ways you could put it together so it would be safe, but by and large it is just not safe to run a pc without a whole package, proved and checked out.

You run this opposition terminal, he feels like his hair is being parted by all the winds of Venus, you know. You'll see him going like this. When you find the opposition terminal, your pc gets very nattery and very unhappy – you haven't got his modifier yet – and you find this opposition terminal. You could ask him all the things which would oppose making pudding. See, "to make pudding," this is what you've got as his goal. All right, opposing all the things of making pudding. "Who or what would oppose your making pudding?" All right, and he gives you a long list and then you assess this list and you turn up with this item. Well, it's only conditional, the opposition terminal, only conditionally; it's until you finish the package you don't know. But that's good, all right, we will buy that, that's all right. Because we can always say, "Who or what would oppose which?" and get a crisscross and get the rest of the package. See, if you've got any part of a 3D package you can get the rest of the package.

So, we go ahead, then, and we'd say, "If you failed on your goal, if you failed, what would you do to get even with people?" or any such phrase. "How would you get even with people?" You can even go at it on this basis, "All right, supposing you were making pudding and you spill the lot, what would you think and do? That's good, thank you." Such things as that, and he'd tell you what he would think, what he would do, and you eventually wind up with a long list of things. You assess these, you have to crisscross and take pieces of them out and fit them all together again and you eventually jigsaw together this – and it would be something like, "And I'd pick it up and pitch it out the window and blow the place forever," or something weird like this. That is actually the modifier. That's what he would do if that goal were not followed through. And you get a list of those things and you get this thing called modifier.

Now, of course, it's very easy to get the pc's terminal. It'd be all right to say, "Who or what would make pudding?" That's easy. You could get a long list, "Who or what would make pudding?" Oh, my God, he could give you hundreds and hundreds of people and things that would make pudding. "Well, batter stirrers and, well, pastry cooks, and…" He could go on and on, "housewives, women, men, men cooks, barbecuers." No, your problem is not that difficult now. You want to know "Who or what would make pudding and throw it out the window and blow the place forever? Who or what would do this?" He says, "A French chef. A Louisiana cook. Mama," and so forth, and he gives you a list that might only consist of fifteen items. You can go down the list – brrrrrt – there it is – bang! You've got his terminal. Simple. Your goal plus modifier, of course, gives you a limited terminal list that assesses at once, whereas, your goal all by itself gives you a very long list.

Now, you have to go ahead and crisscross this thing and prove it out and find out which is which is what – confronts who and you make up his 3D package and you've got the pc's terminal and the oppterminal and the goal and you've got all the rest of it and that is one package.

Now, additional items could be picked up. This terminal – this terminal here – could be the oppterm and the oppterm could be in the place of the terminal. See, you could have gotten them backwards. Because you might have found the opposition goal on the pc and mistaken it for the actual goal of the pc. So there of course, the opposition goal has a modifier, doesn't it? You've got another modifier you could find on the pc and put with the opposition goal. So there's an additional item. You don't need it. At the moment there's no, you know, possible use for it, but you might find yourself winding up with it.

And then you might have this kind of a situation resulting from the thing: You've got the modifier and it modifies the opposition goal, doesn't modify the goal. Now, this is mostly judgment on the part of the auditor as what makes sense and what's the game. And you fit it together and it does make sense and it does make the game.

But you also will find out that the opposition terminal not only has an opposition goal, the opposition goal is "to raise hell with cooks." See, that's the opposition's goal as viewed from the viewpoint of the pc's terminal.

See, that's what the opposition goal looks like to the pc. Actually, the opposition goal is "to kill cooks" or "never to have anything to do with families," you see, something wild like this. It doesn't have anything really to do with this.

So you can get extra little pieces and it doesn't matter how many pieces you've got, you go ahead and collect pieces. When you finally wind up at the end you have a goal, an opposition terminal, opposition goal, a modifier and a terminal, and that's all you want, and out of that you make a 3D package, and you've got a package. And boy, does this make sense.

Now, you aren't able, actually, to do this type of assessment unless you've done about seventy-five hours, at least minimum, of expert preparation of the pc because these things read small – except on a Mark IV – British Mark IV meter. You'd have an awful time because the read is so tiny. It's almost reading it with a magnifying glass. As a matter of fact, I have read on a Mark IV with a magnifying glass. That's very delicate work, isn't it? But you finally find them all, and they all read right. Get them all checked out.

Up to this time the pc says, "Uh – uh – uh – French cook. Boy, yeah, I've always been a French cook. Yes, I've always wanted to be a French cook, absolutely. Yes. Me, that's me, a French cook – French – French cook. Yeah. Yeah. Jawohl, je vois," something. "Me, a French cook. Yeah. Always. Always. Always. Yes," you know, it's just sell, sell, sell, sell, sell, "That's me," you know, sell, sell, sell. Hell no, the French cook is the opposition terminal in this particular case, he's not the French cook at all. But he's convinced he is. But he'll go through all kinds of ramifications. "Oh, yes, that's my goal, that's always been my goal!" It's the opposition goal. He doesn't know which is which. Why doesn't he know which is which?

Well, this thing is a mess of garbage that nobody could have piloted his way through. Nobody could have. It was absolutely impossible to find out which was which at anything. And it looked like a total confusion. And the triumph of the thing is – my part – is being able to make sense out of it and find its parts. The second you make sense out of it and find its parts, you can pilot your way through it.

But the pc sits there while you're doing it and because it's his bank – "Yeah, well, I've always hated French cooks. Never wanted anything to do with French cooks, that's – yeah, that's me, a French cook. Yeah, I like French cooks. French cooks are fine. I don't think this is any part of me. I don't think I would be a French cook. That's me, French cook."

Because as you run the thing of course these valences are turning through the pc like a roulette wheel and you – it's like a player piano. The pc sits there and you put the roller on the thing and it plays "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles," and the pc, roller, you know, he says, "I'm forever blowing bubbles," see. You just play him like a player piano, he'll dramatize it 100 percent. It's an awesome thing to watch, let me tell you. You just quote some of these parts at him sometimes and the pc – you know, like "singer" and you just say, "Singer, singer, singer, singer, singer, singer, singer, singer, singer," hum-hum-hum-hum, hum-hum, hum-hum-hum-hum-hum.

Well, those are the parts, and they are very easy to find by expert assessment, only by expert assessment on a very reliable E-Meter.

There aren't many auditors in the world that can do this right at the present moment. They are very, very few. But there's – oh, there are about four or five in the United States now; there are six or seven coming over here – you get how small this is to date. But those people really know what they're doing. They really can do it. It's quite remarkable.

All right, now what's this thing really look like? I say a 3D package, and you thought at the same time I said the 3D package, didn't you? Ha-ha! You're always optimistic, that's what's – always filled with optimism.

You know that at any moment – well, even Mary Sue looked at me disappointedly one day, and she says, "Well, why can't it all be just one package and you run it out?" You know, as though I was a bit guilty for not having made it that way. Well. So if even she can say this…

No, it is the package you find. It is the package which is available, the package which can be proved out and the package which can be run. And just as we ran the first terminal out and the first goal, in Routine 3, we run the first part of the 3D package out. And then we upgrade the whole package and hit it again, and we go through all of it again. We go crisscross. We may keep one or two or three of its elements, but we keep upgrading the package and upgrading the package.

What is this upgrade? Well, you found what the pc had a prayer of handling, that is what you found. That is what the pc has a prayer of handling providing you use the exact process – and that was a trick, too, devising the processes which would actually handle the package and don't think it wasn't – the exact process. And that chips off a piece of the package and you can move on.

And here is what a Goals Problem Mass looks like. Here is one – down here at the bottom is a – is a kind of a little package. You sometimes don't find this one at all. This one will blow sometime later in the run, but it exists and it has existed only in the last few thousand or million years. That is a rather recent thing. And all of the characteristics of the mainline terminals and all of the characteristics of the mainline opposition terminals finally deteriorate down to this little, tiny package.

And it's understandable once you know what it is, why this package has everything, but it happens to be unrunnable. It isn't aberrative enough to bother with, but he's liable to be dramatizing it, so both sides all combine into nothing, and he's liable to be, well, he's liable to be a garbage collector who doesn't want anybody to cook while he cooks. You see, it would be all – everything all mixed up. You seldom find this one but it exists and it'll run out.

The one you usually find is somewhere in here. Here is your first pair, first available pair. Here will be a terminal and here will be an oppterm. And if you ever heard of a problem – did you ever hear me talk about problems: postulate-counter-postulate, mass-counter-mass? Well, that is all the Goals Problem Mass is, is a series of very complicated problems. Only the problem's in valences, not a problem in ideas; a problem in identities, not a problem in – "Well, I – I wasn't able to get my wife to cook dinner last night. That's a problem, see, how to get my wife to cook dinner, you see, that's a problem." No, it's a problem that "I am I, and my wife is my wife." You see? This is the crush problem. It's personality versus personality. It's that high velocity of problem, and these personalities are represented by masses which down through the trillennia have gradually accumulated to them totally their characteristics and they act just like people. In fact, they are people as you see them on the street. They are being one or more of these masses.

So here was your terminal-oppterm, and just above this is another pair, and above this is another pair, and above this is another pair, and above this is another pair. Actually, there are hundreds of these pairs, hundreds and hundreds of them. But in the matter of processing, four, five, six of these pairs is about all you ever catch sight of, because running a pair of them blows another half a hundred pair. So it's a sequence.

Now, this is plotted according to the time track. Here is now, and here is beginning of track. And these masses are black – and this one is against that one like that, and this mass is against this one like this, and this one is against this one like that, and this one is against this one like that, and that one is against that one like that, and this one is only against itself. And that's the anatomy of a Goals Problem Mass. And don't think you had – hasn't been one awful trick plotting that thing out. But that is what it looks like and that is a picture of your reactive bank.

Why does it hang up? Well, because each one of these terminals and oppterms, each one of these terminals and oppterms of course is a complete personality package held in place because it has an opposition! And it isn't in opposition against the world and the thetan isn't holding it in place; he has two of them which are holding each other in place of which he is one.

Now, do you remember the old games condition? The person could be self-determined, other-determined or pan-determined. Remember that? Well, in each one of these packages he's gotten over to a total self-determinism and a total other-determinism and a zero pan-determinism. And it actually doesn't pervade very far in life. His life is only monitored by the exact identities of these things. It frightens you to the degree that this is so.

One of them's a hangman, one of them's a rebel. At a certain portion of the track, well, that's the game he played: hangman and rebel. Sometimes he was the hangman, sometimes he was the rebel. And then he got so that he was only the hangman, and then the cycle ended.

Now, back in the History of Man I talked about cycles. Did you ever hear about cycles? Great long periods of track. These are cycles. This is the game he played on that cycle, and then the game he played on the next cycle, and the game he played on the next cycle, and the game he played on the next cycle. And sometimes he gets all loused up and plays a game on an earlier cycle when he's on a later cycle, and does he get confused.

And then, sometimes he will play a game with this terminal versus this terminal. And man, does he feel overwhelmed! Because this is something like God or somebody, you see, somebody like a planet builder versus a janitor. And the auditor, when he gets this, can't conceive how these things could possibly be: mass versus mass, planet builder and a janitor. "Well, I guess a janitor could…" And he'll – the preclear can explain it all to you. He says, "Well, actually after they build the planets, why, somebody has to clean them up. And while they're building them they clutter up everything so you have to clean it all up afterwards."

"Ah, well, I don't know, it doesn't sound right to me." Well, it isn't right, but it will run.

You're just simply running a terminal which is within the last two or three cycles of time, sixty thousand or six hundred million or something like that, years long, and you're running one of these recent terminals through the whole Goals Problem Mass in such a way that the Goals Problem Mass in the bank if you saw it – of course just doing a small picture of it, is – sort of looks like this. See? But then it's all like this anyway! You know, it's…

Now, it's a characteristic of a problem that if it's totally balanced and perfectly balanced, that it becomes timeless. There is no time connected with it, so it just floats forever. There's nothing can disturb its equilibrium, so every time is its time.

Why does a man go on worrying? You've seen people around who were worrying about their family after having been gone from home for fifteen or twenty years working in the slaughterhouse. They're still worrying about their childhood and their family. Did you ever notice this? Well, what is hanging up there and why that is, is the problems have drifted forward because there was no time in them. Instantaneous no-time. And that's where an E-Meter comes in. E-Meter spots this only on instant reads and spots withholds and reactive bank only on instant reads, because the reactive mind is unable to differentiate time. Only the analytical mind can differentiate time. So you get instant reads and you know you're reading the reactive mind on an instant read. But if you're reading a latent read, you're reading the analytical mind.

Well, that's a very interesting package. It doesn't look very difficult there. Let me assure you, however, it has been giving you a lot of trouble.

Who are you? What are you playing against? And from a personal point of view, what do I represent in your bank? Isn't that interesting? The probability is I represent nothing. But here and there where people are late for coffee or things like that, I am – they're probably the rebel, you see, and they've got me mixed up with Big Brother. See, I am Big Brother in the bank, you see, or something like that, and they're the rebel, see. And that is the package, you see. Weird! Quite fascinating, quite fascinating to watch this in play. I'll tell you tomorrow a lot more about withholds, and how this whole – all of these tie in and why they tie in. But it's quite curious.

Do people know what they are fighting? No. Do they know who they are? No. It strikes a pc like a bolt of thunder when he first finds out.

"What? Me?" I've seen a pc come out of a – of a checkout – he didn't believe it right up to the time it was checked out by an Instructor – he just couldn't believe it!

And he says, "What do you know? Me, a (blank)! A (blank). Me! Me! Me! What do you know. It's right, though, but me? Hm. Hm."

And of course, because it's timeless, he tends to believe that he has always been a tailor, and that the only package in the bank of which he has ever been or is being will be a tailor, and so he settles for "tailor" at that moment. He thinks himself as a tailor, and of course, until it's run out he's nicely settled there. But of course, at the same time, he's been unable to be a tailor, or something has been wrong with tailoring always, you see, always having trouble. All of his motivators come from tailors. It's always a mess. But the fact of the case is, you upgrade it only after his attention is totally off of it.

Now, you can't run out the ideas out of these packages. The ideas won't run out! Why? Because it's a total package and you don't take the ideas off the package and run them out. That's why they won't blow. Fascinating? You've got to run out the whole package and then it disintegrates and goes away.

In other words, if the terminal is a French chef, you don't run all the ideas of a French chef to get rid of the French chef, you just run the French chef, and more or less how you've solved problems with relationship to French chefs. And you get all that off the top and you get the problem handled, because these are a series of problems.

And as John – just left Saint Hill just a few days ago – John said, "You know, I don't think anybody has ever had ten ideas in this lifetime. There haven't been ten ideas out of this lifetime that a person has ever got. They're all from one of these packages way back when, trillions of years ago, and those are the ideas that a person uses, and those are the ideas he walks with." Which is quite interesting. That's just a quote from him. It gives you an idea of how – the permeation of one of these – one of these packages and how it drifts forward.

Well, we call it a package so as not to treat it with respect, because you've been treating it with respect far, far, far too long. You've been saying, "Well, there's me and them, and there isn't very much you can do about it." Furthermore, it apparently makes a nice game – hangman and rebel. You always go where there are rebels so that you can hang them. Or if a country has hangmen you always rebel so that you can be hanged. Nice game.

But some of these games are very complicated. You would be amazed how complicated the game is. Fabulous! Somebody is being an airplane pilot or a rocket jockey, or something like that, versus – seldom machinery – but it'd be versus – an airplane pilot versus airport personnel. It'll be as sensible a game as that, see? You'd have a hard time predicting what kind of a game it would be. You must never tell the pc what it is, because you don't know. You always have to take the data from the pc; you never suggest any data to the pc. You only take what the pc – what you tell the pc to list, and then you list what he says and you never suggest anything else. That is a frailty in training young – new auditors on how to do this. They very often make this mistake. They sort of suggest this or that, and they must not do it. It is very unsuccessful, because it isn't their bank they're running.

Now, in view of the fact that everybody's bank is different than everybody else's bank, then people can audit each other on this stuff with practically no restimulation whatsoever. Except in one case. Supposing the pc's opposition terminal is a woman, and he's got a woman auditor? And every time she sits down there to audit him, he has a feeling like he ought to have ARC breaks or something because she throws his bank into restim. And what do you know, she can even audit him if she's good. She has to be a better auditor, that's all.

But this is the Goals Problem Mass. And the anatomy of it is no more complicated than what I have just given you. Each one of these things is a compact and condensed personality that is versus something else, and the something else is right there too, and the pc can partake of the qualities of either one.

For instance, he is the airplane pilot who is against airport personnel. And every once in a while he finds himself with a tremendous urge to dispatch. And he goes up to the dispatcher's office and that sort of thing and he feels right at home. That's a real place to be – that's a real place to be. Until he burns a hole in his pants with a cigarette or some other untoward thing happens that alerts him to the fact that he should not be there! And then he gets kind of critical about them all of something they have done to him. And he'll gradually sit there and engineer the most fantastic conflicts. And what a thetan can do with these packages is quite remarkable. He will bring the opposition into full play every time. It is marvelous. What skill! What talent! What a mania for collecting motivators. People will always play their own package. They'll work it somehow.

Let's take the terminal combination of a waterbuck and a tiger. There hasn't been a tiger in the country for hundreds of years. The guy finds himself a waterbuck, somehow he'll materialize a tiger. Somehow he'll manage it.

He's got a company which is running very, very calmly and quietly. Let's say – this is a very common package: worker and boss, see, worker-manager. This is a nice clean-cut time-honored reactive game. What's the guy doing being a worker? If he doesn't like to be a worker, why should he be a worker? Well, he is a worker because of the package; he couldn't be anything else, see, violate the package. So he is a worker, and let's say he's in a cooperative which has no manager. He will be the first person to propose an election and get one so he can cut him to ribbons. This is the most marvelous thing you ever watched. It fills you with awe.

But as you examine people and you realize that these 3D packages exist in people, and you realize for instance that you're trying to run a nice family, and you've got some element of the family is just wilder than a hatter, and you can't get this settled down. One of these days you will get a 3D package, you will know exactly why, and that nothing under God's green earth could have ever been done about it, except to get the 3D package. There is no stopping short of that to knock the whole thing out.

The person's opposition terminal is "family." It's as simple as that. That's easy. So anything he has to do with a family is going to go wrong and he's going to have a game and he's going to have a fight. And you could serve him soup in bed and you could do anything you wanted to do, he'd spill it! Damn it, he'd spill it all over himself and burn himself! He would, you know. He'd make it. They're good at this. They're good at this.

So, you have difficulties – where a thetan has difficulties, he insists on this pattern of difficulty and what is remarkable is, he doesn't get into difficulties that aren't on this pattern of difficulties. These are the difficulties he gets into, nothing else.

I'll tell you, a fellow could stand in the middle of a forest with a roaring forest fire going on around him on all sides, and if it had nothing to do with his Goals Problem Mass, he would not even get singed! He wouldn't even lose his shoes! But he could be in the middle of the forest, and there is a boy with an air gun five miles away and his opposition terminal is a small boy, and there are just thousands of trees and it is only an air gun bullet. He'll get himself killed! He'll make it! It's almost as if he has to get out of his head and lead the bullet through the barrel, over, and get himself shot.

Well, I give you a preview of this. Human behavior becomes highly predictable and extremely intriguing when you start looking at 3D packages.

What you need amongst you is not necessarily auditors at this instant who can audit 3D packages, but auditors who are very, very good at Class II activities, so that they can – you can be led up to a point where getting a 3D package is a very simple affair. And then, of course, you need auditors who are experts at Class III and we'll have those too. We have proven out that this can go.

So there's what we're doing, there's what we're going, and there's what happens. I consider it fantastic that the thing was resolvable. The complexities of it are absolutely fantastic. The steps you have to take in order to assess it, in order to prepare the assessment, I didn't at first believe auditors could learn. But I find they learn these much more easily than much simpler steps taken on other old techniques. Fascinating.

But there is a 3D package, and there is what a human being's behavior is all about for the first time on this planet, announced.

Thank you.

Thank you.

See you tomorrow.

PARTS OF THE 3D PACKAGE PAGE 13 CHC-03 – 30.12.61

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures CHC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1961]]