View source for Problems of Auditing (2ACC 531208)

'''Series:''' 2nd Advanced Clinical Course (2ACC)

'''Date:''' 8 December 1953

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_2ACC|Back to Series]]

December the 8th, afternoon lecture. And we have, today, to take up the problem of auditing—just for a change.

You know, it isn't very difficult to audit somebody or exteriorize them or bring them up the line. It's just not very difficult. It could be that somebody could be standing by waiting for myself to do it. Could be somebody was saving those nice effects there to be sprung out in this fashion. And that would be gypping the rest of you as auditors, wouldn't it? So let's discourage the idea. Let's just discourage it real good.

You know, I don't want to take up SOP 8-C for the remainder of this course. It's almost beaten to pieces right now. If I thought I had to say anything more that was very specific about it, I would be very disappointed in you, believe me. I'm going to go over it until the end of this week. And Monday morning, I hope to be able to take up SOP 8-O. So you better be a Theta Clear by then. Because it'll just become incomprehensible. Now, that's—it gives you lots of time, gives you days.

Now, the brutal truth of the matter is, if I'd put as much time in on a preclear as you've been putting in on preclears, and I hadn't gotten a Theta Clear on the thing, I would examine my own postulates about what I was trying to do and break the neck of the preclear—one or the other. (laughter) Ten hours of auditing today is a long time, that's lots of auditing. You'd expect to put this in on somebody who was 99 or 108, who couldn't see, couldn't feel, and didn't know where their right foot was; but not on fairly young people. Thirty hours would be a long time to put on the character that I just mentioned to you. Five hours of auditing would be a long time to put in on any case here.

Now, at the risk of making myself very unpopular with you, which risk is always taken when one tries to do something for somebody else, let me assure you that the amount of progress which has been made on an average by this unit could have been duplicated by a third grade class. Third grade, US public school system. I could have taken a third grade class and we'd have had this much progress.

Now, let's search into the basic reasons and the deep significance as to why this is. One, partially my responsibility—I didn't put in your hands a piece of paper which put a technique sequence down. That was necessary. And two, that's not mine. Somebody just mentioned it over here before the lecture. And that something was the substance of education—he said this morning he'd had a lot of his education, since he was here, run out. You could call this a process of uneducation. That's the only excuse—I keep telling you this—the only excuse we have for (quote) "teaching" (unquote) this subject, is to uneducate.

It is not what you know in terms of data. It is what you can unburden in terms of knowingness. Now, if you're going to go on the basis that your knowingness is all there on the surface and all accessible to you and you're able to put it to use, and if you have enough data surrounding it, it can be of more use, and if you make that all automatic, that will be of more use, well, you're not going to—you just missed the point.

Your knowingness is native. But it's something like a native that's been buried alive. We used to talk, in mining, in terms of "overburden." There was as much value in mining a mine as you didn't have to remove overburden to get to the ore. And a preclear is a problem of overburden. And you could envision yourself as an auditor up there about 150 feet above him with a shovel and throwing it off into infinity, you'd just about have the role right.

Now, in instructing so that you can get an uninstruction, I have another problem. And that's to show you what rocks in the overburden can be removed to disturb and get rid of the overburden—what rocks? Because all of the overburden on a case is held rather delicately in place. It's not very solid. And there's certain pins which, if disturbed, will cause the overburden to go on off, and we get to the gold.

But if you think you can train yourself into getting some of this gold, that's not true. SOP 8-O is the first technique into which you can go into some (quote) "training." That is simply to exercise the thetan into doing some of the things which he should be able to do as a thetan, and probably on the whole track never learned how.

Now, that's the first education you'll run into. And that will not be on the basis of setting up an automaticity, it will be on the basis of examining the universe in which a thetan finds himself, and discovering how it is habitable, as well as constructing parts of it. That's what that concerns itself with. That's very constructive and destructive in this fashion.

We're not at that level with SOP 8-C. We're trying to dig a thetan out of a skull and stabilize him and get him unburdened enough so that he knows he's there and he knows he's operating and he knows where he is. And where he knows how he can get rid of his own data.

When we consider how many lies the preclear has been told, we can see that we needn't worry about the truths. Because these are outweighed a thousand to one by the chicaneries which have been put upon him.

He was told that if he was a good boy and minded, he would succeed in life. Isn't that wonderful? Why, right there, we open that up and that carcass starts to stink—right away, quick. What is a good boy? Well, we get by parental definition that a good boy must be a dead boy—that must be the best boy you can be, by just extrapolation.

Now, let's take what a good boy is: a good boy is quiet, doesn't make noises or disturbances, goes into no large motions, disturbs nobody's havingness, acquires nothing that he asks for, and asks for nothing but is sort of put on charity, and he gets what is coming to him, you see, and is happy about it afterwards. Now, this is a good boy.

Parental proposition is stop motion, stop motion, stop motion, stop motion, stop motion, stop motion and then for variety, stop motion. And when he gets to be five, they put him in school so his motion will really stop. Oh, he will have all these stops on the track, and that's being a good boy.

Well as stopped as you can get, of course, is dead. And it's a funny thing with some preclears, you run End of Cycle of parents killing him, and gee, people are satisfied with that. Not just because of prenatal AAs and other things, but just because of this stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. That isn't what they meant to do. That isn't what he interpreted them as meaning to do. But this is what the mechanics of this thing called life dictated as the end product—death.

Now, we're discovering, as we look over this, what inference life itself takes from the actions which occur in an environment. And we find out this is very strange, but the child comes to the conclusion after a while that they were trying to kill him. You see, it comes to this conclusion quite naturally, because being stopped is being dead, and if he's stopped often enough—this is all anybody ever tried to do to him on the track when they'd killed him; they were just trying to stop him—so if the parents stop him, they must have been trying to kill him. So this is his inference. So he finds himself living with a couple of murderers. And this is the inference he takes.

Now, we're not going into the deep significance of this. Don't look at it as a deep significance or a hidden significance—it's the overt one which has been suppressed. Because almost any child who got into that situation and got that deeply mired down, eventually blew up in the parental face—crash!

And he said, "What's the idea? Are you trying to bump me off? What do—you don't want me to be. You don't want me to live. That's the trouble with you. You don't want me to amount to anything, you're always getting in my road," and so forth.

And he was told, "If you talk like that any more, we will really fix you up."

So there, you see, the overt conclusion is the buried one, and we get this sandwiched on and on and on all through the ages that an individual has lived. All through the ages.

It starts out with a trick. It says, "Now you—you're afflicted with spirits and God because your mock-ups are disappearing. Your space is collapsing and none of us had anything to do with it, you poor fellow, and we're going to help you out."

There's an incident on the track known as the Dear Souls, which is a wonderful incident. They put up a thing called the "Bubble Gum" and they'd catch thetans, and then they'd explain to them how it was all for their own good. Of all the soupy, supersaccharine goo that comes off of this facsimile—it's just goo in all directions! And it's keyed in by some of the more debased religions here on Earth. Sympathy—oh, sweet and so forth—really urk.

Now, the kid runs into this in this lifetime and here's this thing sitting here and confronting him again. Well, he got out of that one time or another, and he got through that some time or another, and here he runs into it again, and he gets the inference that every kind action then must be designed to kill him off.

There's another overburden. You try to be kind to a lot of people, they don't know what you're talking about. You must be a pitch. And it's real bad. It's real dangerous to try to help man. No kidding. You got to be God knows how tough. You have to be able to take almost anything in order to help him, merely because he knows so many things that aren't true.

And yet, let's look at this: The person who has no trust or confidence anymore has no knowingness anymore. Isn't that interesting? Now, that's a mechanic of existence. Somebody who cannot trust, who cannot just widely throw himself to the winds and embrace everything and trust everything in sight and so forth, he gets real bad off, he doesn't survive well. That's interesting, isn't it? He's real bad off when he can't do that.

Well, you say that's the most dangerous thing imaginable to suddenly open your doors to every robber and burglar and so forth. No, that's not dangerous. What's dangerous is to close those doors. That's getting real dangerous, because that's cutting a communication.

You ask most people—you say, "What would you think of complete wide-open communication lines in all direction? All right, now you as a preclear run this—complete wide-open communication lines—just get the concept of this."

And most of the people you give that to, if you were in a session, they'd say, "Urrururr. No, not for me! Hm-mm. Somebody else, but not me. This is probably a very noble theory, but I know it's dangerous."

You see? He knows again. What does he know? He knows that he better be small and powerless. That's what he knows when he says, "I know it's dangerous to have wide-open communication lines in all directions." The only way you could know is if you had total communication potential—wide-open communication lines in all directions.

So you see how life becomes a dwindling spiral. It's by making a basic mockery out of anything a person should be. A man should be noble and have self-respect, and yet it's fashionable to negate any skill a person has, and to say, "I don't amount to much."

In the most debased societies, this has gotten to a point where people are saying to each other all the time "(indrawn breaths) I withhold my foul breath from your face. (indrawn breaths) I withhold my foul breath from your face. Insignificant I, addresses honorable and glorious you, the question, how about some tea?" Routine conversation. And yet these people have to have self-respect in order to be at all.

So you see how the spiral becomes inverted? See what happens? Well, it isn't clear at first glance, but a person has been taught by experience that he has gotten into trouble by—and he immediately defines it—he says, "By trusting, by hoping, by being, by being proud, by doing noble things." He's gotten into trouble every time he's done these things. What a foolish man would say that. And yet all man says that. Because you see, high on the scale, he—wide-open communication lines—trusted everything. That's way up and real young.

And the funny part of it was, is you can exactly trace this point: It was his own failure of trust which brought about his first decline in trusting. See, not by a code, but he just failed on trust. Otherwise you never get an outflow-inflow condition with regard to trust. He must have failed in trust.

You see this? He knows now that it's not safe to trust. Well, believe me, let me assure you of this—it is not safe not to trust. That's what's not safe. That's real dangerous. Because the bottom of it is winding up microscopically small, scurrying away in terror from every beingness there is. And you think that's desirable? No, that's not desirable. It's better to get your head knocked off three times a day and to finish that day noble and self-assured than to moderate and monitor your actions throughout the day so that you won't get your head knocked off.

Now, if you as auditors don't see that we're doing an uneducation of the preclear, then you've got your vectors reversed on what SOP 8-C is trying to do. See, it's not trying to teach anybody anything except as you would say it's trying to teach him that he knew a lot of things he didn't have to know.

Now, it's quite a trick to take a being who is bogged into a tremendous quantity of codes, beliefs, (quote) "knowledge" (unquote), science, bric-a-brac of all kinds and descriptions—public education has given him, everybody's given it to him, experience has given it to him and so forth—and bring him up to a point where he can differentiate between experience for his own protection and experience to learn a modus operandi. Because these are two different educational channels. He ordinarily, as a preclear, has these two things completely confused. There's nothing wrong with knowing how something works. And there's everything wrong with saying it mustn't occur again.

There's nothing wrong with being able to know enough about something so that you can create it. And everything wrong with knowing something about it so that it won't hurt you. What nonsense this is, "knowing that it won't hurt you." Yeah, it mustn't hurt us. It can't hurt you!

Now, you can tell a preclear this, even as I am telling you right this minute it can't hurt you—and you can accept this, you might say, sort of intellectually—yes, you see the force of my argument and words. But believe me, you're trying to get ahead to where—a point that a person realizes it. He knows it and becomes certain of it. SOP 8-C run in that direction, all of a sudden the fellow gets certain of it. "What the dickens am I afraid of?" he'll say.

Gee, the only thing to be afraid of—if there is anything to be afraid of—is to step back from one's own state of beingness as one has announced it; because one goes into an immediate smaller operating area. That's dangerous—-to take on less space because some space proves dangerous.

Now, stepping out from this, which would be more or less the state of Theta Clear, stepping out from this, a person can broaden—because of having looked into things, and knowing the state of things—he can actually broaden his activity. He can broaden his operation, you might say, in existence. He is only then able to. You take away the fear and you take away the smallness of a man.

Now, when an individual is exteriorized—it's done well, he's drilled well SOP 8-C, you're not asking him to learn a thing. You're really not asking him to unlearn anything, but just insidiously, it happens that he does. Several tons of overburden can go crashing down the mountainside without his noticing it. And he really won't call a halt until he's been put pretty well on his way. And then he'll start calling a halt on throwing all this stuff away because he hasn't been given the opportunity to make anything. Creativeness then has suffered to some degree. Well, that's the difference between SOP 8-O and SOP 8-C.

So, you're trying to unburden a preclear—man and his burdens. For the first time we're doing it without somebody taking on additional burdens himself. Man used to have ideas of doing this whereby he sort of handed the burdens around—that's faith healing, for instance, is an example of this. You take the pain from the person. You'll find preclears who have done this, and that's real dynamite because they've chosen pain for their randomity. And of course this makes every pain their enemy, and they wind up almost in terror of anything vaguely resembling a sensation. That's death. That's a thetan dead, if you please, if he—when he's in terror of the sensation. All right.

How could you err in processing a preclear? The first way would be not to give some attention to the immediate problems of the preclear and to override them. Now, I have done this as a test. I have had a preclear suddenly offer, quite emotionally, some tremendously pressing problem. And he just kept harping on it, he kept talking about it, and I have ignored it. And I have not seen the case improve.

He's trying to say, "Look, here's something bigger than I can handle and you're here too, and so maybe the two of us can handle it." And that's what all of his jabber and yap is about. "I've uncorked this thing, and it's a real beast," he's saying. "To me it's a big beast and the two of us might be able to rope and hogtie it, but I certainly can't by myself."

And if you don't handle it as an auditor, either by handling it as an automaticity, which is possible, you see, and handling it in other fashions—but if you don't handle it as an auditor, the boy has a tendency to go into a bit of a decline. Because you have failed the person as an auditor. Why? They said, "Now here's the two of us together and the two of us can rope this beast." But it didn't look like a beast to you—didn't even vaguely resemble a beast, it just looked like a whipping, looked like a whole lot of whippings, something of the sort. And you say, "That's nonsense, these techniques handle more broadly than that."

Well, you can avoid it and ignore it the first time it—but if the preclear keeps it up any length of time, believe me you better get in there with a lariat and corral it. You've got too many ways of corralling it to ignore it. Match-terminal it if you can't do anything else.

You must always, in handling any process, even if it is a rote process which is down the line perfectly, do that process with intelligence and do it on the preclear, not into an empty space. Because the preclear is a live space-energy production unit and is in a rather delicate state of mind early in his processing. Because he is sure that everything is going to betray him, and he came to you with complete confidence and then he handed up this time when he lost his pup, and he mentioned it five times and you didn't do a thing about it—you've betrayed him. Now he knows, completely and utterly, that no auditor can be trusted.

Another thing—couple of cases here could easily have been bettered with a very, very small amount of common sense. Very small amount. You say, "Look, this case isn't progressing. I've processed this case for half an hour—isn't progressing." You know you should regard that as cataclysmic. Let's just change our sights on this thing and process the case for a half an hour, and no communication change and no apparent betterment in the case and no better exteriorization and no better perception—cataclysmic. Not just "isn't that strange"—ah, that's cataclysmic. I mean, it's just terrific! I mean, it's awful! I mean, that's just something you just couldn't stand. That's a thousand pairs of fingernails on the blackboard all going down simultaneously. See, that's real bad. And for anybody to sit there, you know, and go on into the next half an hour without something happening is real strange. That's peculiar.

If you get yourself gauged up to be able to—you say, "Someday I will be able to make a Theta Clear in an hour—total, you know—good perception and so forth, in an hour," why, you've condensed your sights down just a little bit more than they will stand. I mean, that's just a little too short, see? But if you were to pull them down in that direction instead of up into hundreds of hours, where I'm sure one or two has them at the present moment, why, you have a big difference.

Now, here's our problem. All the technology which we've had to date has validity. These states of mind, and this phenomenon has not altered or varied simply because we have better processes to handle it. And what you're sitting there with is rich in processes; and just because you're rich in processes didn't make the mind poor in phenomena. There was no distribution of wealth took place. The mind is just as rich as it ever was in peculiar phenomena. And it's not very peculiar now. Book One tells you what symbols will do, it'll tell you what language will do and what engrams of pain and unconsciousness will do; that—they still do those same things.

Now, Science of Survival talks about cases that are "too heavy" to be run by heavy techniques, and that still exists. Well now, just because you can handle all these symbols easily, and just because you can handle a heavy case and so forth easily is no reason why you suddenly say, "Well, there are no such cases." They are. They exist. No reason for you to validate their difficulty just by making it more difficult for them, because you can handle it easily. But remember, you can handle it. The techniques of SOP 8-C will handle all of those problems.

Now, there are other problems. There's the overt act- motivator sequence. I'll give you a fast way to handle the overt act-motivator sequence, very fast way to handle it—move it around as a postulate. What's the best postulate that fits it? Consequences. The consequences of an action is another action. That's the overt act—motivator sequence boiled down to its most significant estimate.

So if you just put "consequences" around or "consequences if" around and handled it as a postulate all over the place, why, the fellow would—all of a sudden would completely shake free of the fact that, "Well, let's see, if I tip my hat, she might not understand …" You get what's falling apart there? He's going back to facsimiles whereby if he ate somebody, why, their relatives are liable to eat him. Gets real heavy, you see, back on the track, and it's called out in this—in these little, minor social ways.

Overt act-motivator mechanism. "Well, he deserved it"—how often you hear this in society: "He deserved it," and so on. It's consequences. Deserving something—consequences. "The consequences of his action are …" Now, you should recognize this sort of thing.

Now, true, if everybody is in agreement with everybody else, then people must have mechanisms to be in agreement with other people. Now, some people you run into will have very peculiar cases. They'll look very peculiar to you, simply because the mechanisms they're using are not in agreement with the mechanisms which you're accustomed to see in the same tribe. Such as the tribe of New York.

Now, if this isn't done … I mean, this person—he sees a woman is trampled on in a subway or something of the sort and he goes over and picks her up, and you look at him strangely, wondering why he's doing that. Nobody in New York would ever pick her up. See, it's not a tribal custom. And you might process madly on this, thinking there was something horribly wrong with this fellow, when all it was, is it happened to be a custom of where he came from—advertisedly, Texas. And so these differences of custom very often will appear to you as major aberration when they're not.

No, the only thing that's an aberration is what's oppressing him, and that he's helping oppress him. That's a major aberration. It's not that he's doing something peculiar, there's something oppressing him. Now, you better find out what's oppressing him if this case isn't making any progress. You know, just look over at him and say to him, "What exactly is oppressing you?" you know—you know, not even confidentially. You give him a chance to talk.

And you know practically no auditor I ever ran into ever gave the preclear a chance to utter an opinion? Preclear never had an opinion. Early auditors in training way back, they ordinarily and routinely talked too much and let the preclear talk too little. Routine. See, and that was the routine criticism that was just auditor after auditor after auditor after auditor, the reason for failure, reason for failure, reason for failure, reason for failure—he talked too much, the preclear talked too little.

But now we're not talking about uttering phrases, we're talking about letting the preclear express something. You're trying to increase somebody's self-expression—well, please don't be shocked when somebody starts to express; because he will as an immediate result of your auditing.

Now, there's such a thing as somebody expressing compulsively or continuously in such a way as to completely interfere with what you're trying to do. All he's doing is fighting a duel with you, but you can recognize this. There is that long-suffering preclear who will only offer the objection once, in the mildest and most covert possible manner, and who afterwards will never utter it again—he will simply sink into apathy. He said it rather pathetically once, "I have a slight feeling in my shoulder." That's all he's going to offer you on the subject. There's a burning pain in his shoulder and it's been continuing now without anything happening to it for fifteen minutes. And he—it finally prods him, practically as a hot iron, up to a point of saying something about it. And he does, and all he says about it is, "I have a slight pain in my shoulder."

And you as an auditor don't take your cue and you don't do anything about it, and after that he's lost all confidence in you. He sinks into apathy, you don't have his interests at heart—that's the end of it. And you're going to have to work like mad to get this man to do anything after that. But he's liable to sit there and say, yes he's doing it, yes he's doing it, yes he's doing it.

I had a very promising young auditor one time—oh, he was a very, very fine young fellow. He looked good, he sounded good and the only trouble was he just didn't have good sense. A rather routine 1.1 case was picked up by this boy, we were going to keep him around and so forth and not turn him out to grass because he—a lot of promise in that boy. And we gave him this case, and we told him to do something about this case; and you know what he did? He sat there for five days and let the case tell him he was running one thing while the case was running something else. And the case was using that period on the couch simply to run something else.

And if you're having very much trouble with a case which is apparently running all right but no communication changes are happening on it, you know what's happening? The preclear isn't running what you say so, or the preclear is running nothing, but is just sitting there with perfect contentment saying, "Yep. Mm-hm."

And you'd be surprised how often this happens. And this boy never detected it. This promising young auditor was immediately unpromising. We put him down as having the—not even a foggy insight into anything. Because this preclear was obviously doing something else. He was getting somatics on other things. He was running when he was not supposed to be running, he was not—all you had to do was look at him and watch him twitch in the wrong places at the wrong moments and realize he was doing something else—you didn't need an E-Meter to tell you this.

But if a preclear isn't making any progress with me after a very short time, if I don't happen to be in a mood to take much looks that day, I go and get an E-Meter. Not as a criticism of him, I just go and get an E-Meter and say, "We will now proceed." And if that needle isn't moving somewhat, somehow, when I tell him to do things, I find something that'll make the needle move. I'm good at that. You better get good at it. I can always produce an effect upon a preclear. I can blow them out of the chair if nothing else happens.

One preclear was not convinced that anything would ever be done to him, would ever produce any effect upon him, and he kept along in this delusion for an hour and ten minutes. And at the end of that time, I gave him a command which is a rather sharp command anyway—I mean a rather result-producing command—and told him to run it. And he didn't know whether he was running it or not and he says, "Well, you didn't—quite sure how you ran that." And, "Ha-ha!" he …

I said, "Well get the thought of it. Now get the thought of it clearly," and then zapped him in the right temple.

He says, "It produced a somatic."

I said, "You're absolutely right. So now let's get going."

Isn't that mean? (audience laughter)

This was a very far-gone case, by the way. He didn't think anything could give him any kind of sensation, that was what was wrong with him, so he wasn't going to even try—really floppy. But you take a few bolts and shove them at somebody suddenly and out of the blue, and as an immediate result of something … Now, I shouldn't tell you something like that because you don't need anything to boost you along occasionally. But I sure got him interested. It focused his attention.

Now, he ran that experimentally a couple of more times and naturally it did the same thing. Why? It made a little engram. And he thought that was real peculiar, and he got real interested in his own phenomena from then on. And he went right on along, we cleared him, exteriorized him, got him so he was in good shape. That was all he needed.

Well, I don't ask you to do that. Nor do I ask you to connect your E-Meter cans to the electric light plug. This is not effective—often cruel. But it will produce an effect! (audience laughter)

Of course, that's pretty wild stuff. In all the preclears I've ever audited, that's the only one I ever zapped. I've sure felt like it a few times though. But mainly on the basis of somebody telling me that he was doing something when he wasn't doing it. Now you shouldn't form a harsh or critical opinion of your preclear merely because he isn't doing it, you should use it as diagnostic material.

Then we get the other kind of preclear. He doesn't do something else, he does something quite opposite. He's done all you're trying to get him to do. That's always a sticker—he's done it all. His trouble is he is running a "got to maintain." He has to maintain. He feels desperate about maintaining a level of knowingness and superiority. And he has to—he's having a rough time when he's doing that. So you handle that by getting him to push these postulates around.

But you should be able to look at somebody and think. Not just look. There's something else beside looking, there's such a thing as looking and knowing, rather looking and figuring. You see what would be different about looking and knowing, and looking and figuring. You can figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. You don't have to figure a preclear—look at his behavior and then know what he's doing.

If you just run yourself for a little while on looking at a preclear and then sitting back and knowing, it'd surprise you the next time you started to audit a preclear to all of a sudden know what he was doing. That's what we call insight.

Now, if any case is hung up, it's probably because of some perfectly easy thing. Just stuck on the track. Where? Well, of course, the closest thing to home would be stuck on the track by auditing, wouldn't it?

Well, I started a preclear going the other day—one of this group—because this case has been stuck on the track by some auditing. How do you remedy such a thing? Got lots of ways to remedy it. But this person had been audited by people in this class several times without any result. And the clue to the thing was, the preclear knew exactly what it was—she was stuck in an auditing session.

And so what did we do about the preclear? We just chased this preclear around the various rooms in which the preclear had been audited. She wasn't even well exteriorized, that just didn't matter two nickels' worth at all. Just chased her around these auditing rooms. "Just get the idea of being in room—now we'll number them, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight—all the rooms in which you were audited." And first you only had about three or four auditing rooms, and then we only had—then we had some more, and then we started to spot up other things in the places where she was stuck. Well, we never talked about it, we just chased her around these auditing rooms until the auditing on the case was sprung. That was the case entrance. And that's possibly the case entrance on several people here.

Now, you've got Change of Space Processing. You have Creative Processing. You have all kinds of processes. It doesn't mean that just because we're using hot, fast processes, we've all of a sudden just lost all the processes we have and nor does it mean that the mind is suddenly released and all the phenomena that can happen to it. These things haven't ceased. You're still auditing this person.

Now, we've got hot processes which, if followed out well, will wind up with a goal. It's definite; very good, too. Let's treat it that way, however—that you're auditing to produce a betterment in terms of freedom from knowing so well that one is going to be betrayed, done in, et up, chewed up. You're trying to get somebody over "it must never happen again," consequences of his own action, consequences of his own lookingness. These are the things you're trying to do. They're just the fundamental things which I've been covering with you here in these lectures. That's all. Those are your goals. All right.

How many ways could you do it? Well, let's take "it must never happen again." The crudest and most horrible way to do it would be to match-terminal it. Anybody who would match-terminal this on a preclear would beat a dog—without cause. Because that's real brutality. Because that's the postulate which exists with heavy effort in every heavy facsimile the preclear has: "It must never happen again." He has every motion which was going to threaten him stuck on this postulate. But you could handle it as a postulate. You could shift it around as a postulate—"must never happen again."

Now, you'll find out that all kinds of things would start falling off the case that must never happen again. Even auditing would. But a problem, very often, at which a preclear cannot look, must be handled as an individual problem. As long as it doesn't take too much of your time.

Now, if handling a problem for ten minutes doesn't produce a change in it, by any of the more modern techniques, you're using the wrong approach, and you should simply shift what you are doing to something else if you don't change this thing in ten minutes.

The other thing is, is you very often beat a problem to death that should never have been fooled with. You take some foolish problem—you make up your mind that this person is this way because of a terrific affinity with Rover. So you just start beating Rover to death. Well, of course, the funny part of it is, if somebody put you on an E-Meter, why, "dog" would probably fall fifteen dials. Because this is the effort the auditor makes to duplicate, you see. He's got to duplicate. So some poor preclear sits there and beats Rover to death.

Now, this becomes very, very sad, but it's only sad in terms of lost time in auditing. If I don't see a communication change in a half an hour which is quite marked, I don't pursue the course of auditing which I am pursuing. I start digging. Well, I start digging by finding out "what does this preclear have to unlearn?" Generally, it's—this preclear has to unlearn that women are voracious, horrible, dangerous and terribly necessary. Now, that's what this person has to—that his whole life is completely oppressed on the subject of women.

Or she's got to unlearn the fact that Papa is the worst beast of all. You know, we find out which—this person can't mock up Papa, can't do anything about Papa. Has complete, good mock-ups, you processed her for a half an hour, nothing happened and you didn't handle anything like that. You start looking around and all of a sudden here's Papa. She can't mock up Papa, she can't do anything about Papa, she puts up any idea about Papa and it flies off to the moon. Well, let's just start in with gradient scales or anything else we can start in on. Gradient mock-up building is awfully interesting in this line. Build them up shoe by shoe and various ways, but let's get her to handle this problem. Let's get her over this idea of Papa.

Well, there's various—thousands of ways you can do it. There are ways to handle Papa and so on. Well, I don't expect you to know all these ways, but you've got ways in SOP 8-C which will handle Papa. "Where isn't Papa?" And you've, right there, started handling him. You say, "He isn't—let's see, he's not—not on Mars." Well, this is a good clue. Must be in the room. Here we start, see? You've got dozens of ways to handle this, but it's a specific problem.

And please don't leave anybody hung up on lots of past auditing and so forth. They've been waiting for an effect from auditing and they've been doing this and that from auditing and they may be stuck one way or the other on the subject of auditing until one just can't have any peace about it.

As far as exteriorization itself is concerned, if you start to experience a vast difficulty with exteriorization—we go over this again—this person knows he can't exteriorize safely. He just knows he can't be out of his body. Let's just get over this idea of "he is in his body because he is stuck there and can't get out." That is not true.

He is in this body because he has to be behind a barricade and inside a thing in order to control that thing—and that is true. You see that? He's got to be in there, protected on all sides. He has to have it. It's terribly necessary that he have a body. It's a barricade, its eyes are invisible barriers, it's—all kinds of things there he's got to have about a body. You don't have to pick up many of these things and solve them. But at least solve something like the invisible barrier and so on.

You can exteriorize almost anybody on effort, if you try. "Find four points of efforts in the body. Now find four where there are no points of effort. Now find four …" And next thing you know, just tell him to step out and put his hands on his shoulders. Effort is what's wrong with this case. But he won't do it very happily and he'll go back in in a hurry if you haven't handled some of the reasons why he can't get out of a body, believe me.

So exteriorization is a somewhat specialized problem. But you better work right straight along with it. SOP 8-C will do a pretty good job on exteriorization, but it won't exteriorize if it doesn't hit the answer why the person isn't exteriorizing.

Now, here you have in those first three steps—just reason after reason after reason can be laid open there why a person isn't exteriorizing. And you have other techniques down in the last four steps. These four steps—last four steps shouldn't just be run as a gunshot, but you have all kinds of techniques down there to remedy the reason why. You've got all kinds of them. I mean, there's just technique after technique in—contained inherently in the last four steps, which can be run on somebody who is still inside, just enough to boost him out.

It's not much of a trick to get somebody out of his body, you just have to disabuse him of the fact that he has to have one. And that's uneducating him and it doesn't take long to do it.

Now, the anchor points of the body can be disarranged to a point to make him—make it difficult for him to get out and get in. That is a mechanical reason. But that's a mechanical reason, and the others are mechanical reasons too. If they weren't backed up by his own self-determinism, they wouldn't have any validity at all, those mechanical reasons. He is determined to stay in a body. This is what you can immediately judge from it. And his determinations must take a certain form. Some thought must occur to him every time he tries to exteriorize.

Well, there's one way to do that, is just send—have him get a picture of himself exteriorized, way back of himself someplace, see, and have him do that several times. And he'll tell you what he doesn't like about it. Now, you can handle that by waving it around as a postulate, just move it around as a postulate. You can also handle it, if a certain frantic or fixed feeling comes over him or something every time—he's just stopped, see?

Every time he—you say, "Be three feet back of you head."

And he says, "Every time you say that I just get stopped."

Why, you say, "Well, all right, put that stopped feeling in the ceiling. Now let's put it in the wall. Now let's put it over in another wall. And let's put it in another wall. And let's put it in the floor. And let's put it in the ceiling. And let's put it in the back wall. All right."

Now let's run, as a postulate, "I must leave" and "I must not leave," see?

"I must leave." Now we'll wave that all around as a postulate while he's still inside the body. We'll move it in various places of the room. We won't go very far, you see, and we won't mix him up in directions if he's still in the body because he's liable to get pretty confused.

When he's in a body, don't mix anybody up on directions, because he's mixed up enough. And you get him out—"I must leave" and then you get that handled so that's no longer difficult to handle. And then you get "I must not leave" or "I must stay" or something like that, and get that handled.

And then the funniest part of it—the funny one to handle is, of course, handling stop by making it move. Preclear can get into more difficulties with this than anything else I've tried to run on somebody. Just for a few seconds they will be in bad trouble with this, trying to get this postulate "that he must stop." And then he'll start handling it very well. It's quite amusing to run into something like this.

What's his problem? He feels like he's stopped. So let's find out what he says his problem is. Let's at least find out what he says his problem is.

Let's—now you do that and you say, "Let's mock—mock yourself up twenty-five feet back of your head. Now what occurs to you? Now mock yourself up again twenty-five feet back of your head."

And he—"Nuh-uh. Not for me," he says, "no, sir."

And you say, "What's not for you?"

"Well, I just wouldn't want—like to be up there, that's all. I might fall."

Good. You got it. "I might fall."

Well, how many ways can you handle that? Well, one of the ways of handling it is making him—falling is a very rough problem to handle sometimes. But if you make things fall in reverse, you'll find out that every effort he's got ready to fly with, is reverse falling. Things will go from the ground into the sky at a terrific rate.

I was showing the First Unit that one day and, my gosh, they had stuff flying and into the sky like mad. I mean it's just terrific volumes of stuff going up into the sky. Biggest piece of automaticity they'd ever seen. You just lay the heavy block of iron down on the floor or something like that, and it'll fall up to the ceiling on a person who's got falling in restimulation. Why? Because they regret having dropped. So they're trying to turn time backwards so, of course, everything falls backwards on them.

But that is not the only way to handle that. End of Cycle: "Now have you mocked up as a thetan lying on the floor, completely smashed to pieces and dead." Do that a few times. It finishes a few falls for him. You know these unfinished falling dreams you used to have when you were a kid? Finish some of them for him. "Oh, you say you always got to the edge of the cliff and you jumped off the edge of the cliff and all the wolves were following after you, but you never reached the bottom. You always woke up before you reached the bottom." Just work with him on a gradient scale to make him hit bottom. And what do you know, all of those—all of those dreams will vanish. Just finish the end of cycle. Of course, he's never reached bottom in the facsimile.

Reaching bottom is in itself a fascinating problem in auditing, in terms of making somebody land. But the best way to do it is to have them landed and dead and run that for a while, and then fly them into the sky for a while, and you've handled the problem of falling. But if you just go on hammering them, pounding them and telling them to fall and trying to make a mock-up fall and the mock-up move down another inch and so forth, there's just screech, scree—you could just—you could smell those brakes smoke. Every …

It's wonderful to behold a preclear trying to fall. They just don't do it, that's all. It's very, very quick if you just mock him up as smashed, throw that away, "Mock yourself up smashed again. Mock yourself up as smashed. Now mock yourself up as having fallen from an airplane 8,682 million miles above Earth"—smash. "Now mock yourself up as frozen to death and smashed, having fallen through all that space. Now mock your—mock up the whole bottom of the Grand Canyon in Colorado full of your bodies as a thetan." (This is a real good one, see, bodies as a thetan). "Just full of all of them, all smashed."

"Now get the walls—get the Colorado River turning into blood clear on down into the Gulf of Mexico," you know. Build it up any way you want to build it up. Requires a little bit of fast thinking on your part.

You can get too entirely extraordinary on imagination on what you're trying to do in Creative Processing, but only if you've missed the point of what you're trying to do. You can't get incredible enough—you just can't get incredible enough—if you're still on the point: We're trying to keep him from falling.

Now let's don't have him have dances with thetans and don't get non sequitur on the process. I've seen that happen—the only reason I would mention it. I had somebody eating black thetans one time—I mean, I was having this—I saw this auditor auditing and he had somebody eating black thetans. And this person, this poor preclear, was gorging more black thetans and more black thetans and more black thetans and more black thetans and finally, I nudged the auditor and I said, "What are you doing?"

He said, "I don't know." (audience laughter)

He didn't, either. He hadn't established a problem the preclear had in order to resolve it.

Now, another thing is, is the preclear is nothing if not a problem. And you'll get the preclear who does nothing but offer you new problems. His level of acceptance is to be a problem. He could only get attention from his mother and father when he had a finger smashed or something wrong with his body physically. So you audit him for a while and you'll find he's starting to droop. You know what's wrong with him—there's nothing wrong with him at all except he's got to be a problem. He thinks that your acceptance level of him is one preclear ruined with a smashed thetan, and this is very upsetting. Now, he'll finish off sessions and so forth with you on a flip, see. He's got to be a problem. That's his acceptance level.

How many thousand ways can you handle "I have to be a problem"? You just got lots of them. By the way, this is a very interesting fact that little kids in school quite ordinarily fail in arithmetic because they think of themselves as problems. I had a little girl who was failing in arithmetic one time, tell me, "I just don't know what's wrong. I don't know what's wrong."

And I said, "Well, what about—you having trouble with …"

"Yeah. I have trouble with this problem and that problem and so forth."

And I said, "What kind of a problem are you?"

She thought for a moment and all of a sudden the lock blew almost visibly and she said, "Oh, you mean that kind of problem? Oh, I'm not that kind of a problem at all," and turned around and did all of her arithmetic correctly.

Fastest session on record—two minutes of conversation.

So I'm asking you to look at your preclear and find out why he's not making progress, and if you've audited him without a perception change or if you've audited him for a little while and he's not exteriorized yet. I would say offhand when you get real good, that it shouldn't take you more than three or four minutes to exteriorize almost any preclear. That's when you get good.

Now, you just make up your mind you're going to be that good because you can't be a discredit to me. So just get that good, you understand? Otherwise we'll have no—I won't give you any orders, you're just as determined—you can just be as completely self-determined as you please, so long as you exteriorize preclears as well as I say you've got to.

Okay.

PROBLEMS OF AUDITING PAGE 2 2ACC-18B - 08.12.53

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 2ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1953]]