Well, okay. What's the date?

Audience: The third. February third.

February third?

Male voice: Yeah.

Good.

The formula for Clear is as follows: You get them there — CCH 0 — and the most elementary description of CCH 0, of course you know, is find the auditor, find the auditing room and get wheeling.

Present time problem is only important in that it makes the preclear believe he should be elsewhere doing something else rather than being audited, and so keeps him totally out of session the whole time. A present time problem which does not bop is not one you run. No bop, no run. You understand?

Now, you'll run into preclears that say, "I have a present time problem, and it's all horrible, and it's terrible and I'm just going all to pieces," and all that sort of thing. And the E-Meter just sits there. Pat him on the shoulder, sympathize with him and carry on. All right.

So you've got to find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the preclear to some slight degree. And then the next step is get him under control. You get him under control. You get him under control. Quite different than getting him to get a process that controls him. Do you understand that?

Audience: Yes.

I'm not even vaguely interested in having Scientology control people. You could make a system of bric-a-brac out of Scientology that would control people. That I can assure you. All you'd have to do is delete a few essential elements, curve it around a little bit different, explain how it was for their own good and you'd be on your way.

I'm sure that JC back at the turn of the millennia had a system which actually would have freed people. He was obviously — by the way, this might be of interest to you — he was obviously trying to attain bodhi, trying to tell people how to attain bodhi. Most of the activities he was engaged upon were basically Buddhist activities. He was reputed to have studied in the East, as you know. He did not come to prominence until he was thirty years of age, was only prominent for three years and then exteriorized. Took his body along with him, which is a little bit unnecessary and which, by the way, is the primary booby trap that you run into in Tibetan Lamanism.

We've got preclears around, we actually do have, who are still working on some sort of a Tibetan mechanism laid down on the backtrack whereby you totally vanquish the body, make the body become totally invisible, make it evanescent to a point of where it's totally incapable of stopping a light wave, and you take it with you. Did you know that? Did you know that was part of the booby trap of Buddhism? As I've just described to you, it would be utterly impossible to do so.

There's no reason why you couldn't mock up a body just like it, that everybody could see. But that is not the same thing as taking your body with you. Do you understand?

So a lot of people are trying to get Clear by making nothing out of the body. See that? In fact, it's the primary method. Of course, it doesn't work.

Well, now, whatever happened to that body — and you could say that JC simply mocked it up in the first place, don't you see? You could say that well, it was not a body. They evidently had an awful time getting any backtrack for it. There's more mysticism and monkey business mixed up in how Christ was born and all of this sort of thing, and everybody's very insistent on it. And they even run it back to the Magi. That's very interesting, you know, because the Magi, actually, is simply a wives' tale, which may have some truth in it, which goes right straight back to space opera.

You know the seven stars of the Big Dipper? Seven of the stars of the Big Dipper are a confederation, and this particular system is merely a step-point into the main galaxy. You look it over and you'll see how this is true, because of your distances and so forth. And this is called the Marcab Confederation. I'm telling you now backtrack stuff, space opera — a little more credible today than it was a few days ago.

These — the Marcab Confederation actually survives in our history as the seven archangels. If you want to go look up their names and find out some bric-a-brac about it, it's quite interesting — of course, Michael the tough one, and Uriel and the rest of them. In other words, these people were still dominant over Christianity at the birth of Christianity. It's quite amazing. It's quite amazing to find out that it required their stamp of approval before we could have a miracle. Interesting, isn't it?

Actually, much of the knowledge we have about the spirit and so forth, comes to us from that particular route. Fourth Invader, Fifth Invader: This is a bunch of stuff by which you had a resistive body, here, based on Mars which was resisting this migration from the Marcab Confederation deeper into this particular galaxy. And you have the seven archangels as simply being the mocked-up nonsense, more or less, which is representative of the imperial government of the Marcab Confederation, which consisted of seven brothers.

It's very interesting. If you want to look this up on an E-Meter sometime, you'll be utterly fascinated, because it gives you the background of this particular civilization we have here on Earth, which has been just merely a saw back and forth, push — pull between the Marcab Confederation and those who were here originally. It's a big fight. You look at it over a period of years, however, and you find that the Marcab Confederation is still winning. It's still — but its time schedule was something like about thirty-eight or thirty-seven thousand years, and it's well on schedule. As a matter of fact, it's about fifteen thousand years ahead, right this minute.

But this is — has a magical background. It has a background that is spiritualism — all about religion, exteriorization. And there are certain patterns and so on, which are called off in this particular space-opera show.

The whole idea of the savior and the sacredness of things and so on, is about one and a quarter million years old. The earliest implant about Jesus, and so forth, is one and a quarter million years old. Now, you can say that's very remarkable, very, very remarkable, because Jesus was supposed to have been here about nineteen hundred and fifty-seven years ago. And to find preclears with this implant one and a quarter million years old then rather tells us some odd tales.

I'm not just gibbering, you know? I mean, this is history the way you should have been taught it in school, if people had been honest.

But exteriorization — let's get back on that subject again. The whole idea of bodhi and exteriorization and so on, is persistent in most religions. That is because it's a fact. See? I mean, this is a fact. All religions have to have some grain of truth in them to get a widespread agreement. Well, now the way it gets booby-trapped is, you take your body with you. And you'll find preclears all over the place trying to make nothing out of their bodies. You understand that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

And I've just given you a lecture on how you don't make anything out of your body because you're not connected with it.

That it operates is fantastic. The real miracle is how a body operates with no energy connections. Of course, you can make a body operate by postulate. But if you can do that, then, of course, you can make up — any body walking up and down the street operate, too. And that is one of the things a Clear eventually finds out. He makes a postulate in somebody's direction and says they should stop, and they stop. He decides he'd better not make postulates like that, because he's liable to stop them in front of a truck — that's how he ceases to be Clear. You can remember that.

In other words, the control of body by telepathic interchange is possible; by energy interchange is impossible, unless you go on a tremendous number of vias.

Now, if you try to make somebody fight energy and make nothing out of a body and have a body disappear right where it is, I suppose you'd have a Clear of sorts. And you could probably unmock a body and make it disappear where it is, by postulate. But if you were in good enough shape to do that you would be in good enough shape to also realize that you had no energy connection with it in the first place, and therefore would not be obsessed with the idea of making it disappear.

Now, the total dramatization of destruction is a dramatization. It's been one of the long, lingering questions: Is man actually destructive? No. He's only destructive on a third dynamic. He is trying to keep something going and something else destroys what he has. If it overwhelms him enough then he goes into its valence and after that dramatizes destruction. All destructive impulses are dramatizations, which is quite amazing. I mean, that's the truth of it. This is a funny datum I give you suddenly out of the blue. But, they're all dramatizations.

A person doesn't worry about having mass around. See, what's the thing coming out here? Havingness. Increase of havingness makes a thetan feel much better. And if increase of havingness makes a thetan feel much better, why, then destruction is no part of it. If making nothing out of everything in sight makes him feel bad, and having him put a nothingness before him and behind him, above him, below him, and to the right and the left will make him sick as a pup in no time at all, therefore destruction is not in his best interest.

And we find out that in Fundamentals of Thought we have — the cycle of action is all in terms of create. Destruction, you see, would be accomplished in its final goal, best, if you just stopped creating something. You understand that? You don't have to destroy something to have it cease to exist. Therefore, destruction: it is dramatization and is so, always, otherwise owned on its original postulate and impulse. Therefore a person who is destroyed or overwhelmed too many times, he gets the idea that he's been destroyed too many times, he's been overwhelmed too many times, therefore, he falls into this JC mechanism of taking the body with you. Because it's destroyed, so therefore he makes nothing out of it, see? And his ambition, then, on a dramatization basis, gets to be making the body totally transparent, you see, just wiping it out. Well, that doesn't work.

Now, where you have — where you've had difficulty in your first week, you auditors in auditing these preclears — where you had difficulty with the preclear in the first week, where he didn't make satisfactory progress is, he is over the borderline too far on a dramatization of destruction. See? His screen is resist incoming destruction. Get that? He has automaticities of destruction. You get that?

Now, whether to audit it or not is a question. That's an unanswered question. But we just changed a preclear all over the place in the HGC by sending her out and making her run it — a Waterloo Station-type or Union Station-type process of "Invent a method of destroying that (indicated person)." We ran out the automaticity. Now, this preclear had been going for fifty hours without much change. And I said, "The devil with that," and I said, "Take her out on the street and let her get rid of this 'destroy the body,' " which is the mechanism I've just been talking to you about. Let her get rid of that. Her eyes changed color, her attitude changed, so forth. She did take over the automaticity.

It was interesting that for — I don't know the time, the auditor didn't say — but for a long period of time during the five-hour session, the person could not face the people who were indicated. At first she could look at the people and say, "Well, cut their heads off, stab them," do this, do that, you know? The auditor would say, "Invent — you invent a method of destroying that woman," and indicate the woman, you see, an actual live woman walking down the street. And the auditor would say this, and the preclear would say, "Oh, stab her, jump on her, throw her under a truck." She wasn't really inventing methods. But that was working just fine.

And after a short time, the preclear was no longer able to look at the people she was destroying, see? And, "The woman over there," you know, the preclear would turn her head way over here and say, "Well, I'd — I could feed her — feed her poison." And then finally worked up to a point of where she could look at the person, spot them and then look away, see, and then say how she'd destroy them, and then look back. You get the idea?

Well, now please add this up to what I've just been telling you in the first hour: The destruction was on a via and she dramatized the via. Get that? Nonconfront, then, was a destruction via. She'd look into the bank, you might say. She would not look at the person. Well, this mechanism of "destroy the body" ran out. This mechanism of destruction as a dramatization, per se, ran out.

Now, I'm not advising you that this is a method or anything of the sort. But you do find that some preclears have destruction mixed up with clearing. And you say "clear" and they think you mean "destroy." You see? They think you mean destroy the body. Their fixation is on whether or not the body disappears. You got that? And if you got into that, it is probable — not an accomplished fact — that the shortest method of getting over it is simply to get them to take over the automaticity of destruction with some Union Station, such process as I just gave you. Got that?

Now, where a screen itself doesn't surrender rapidly and where it's being a very, very sticky, long-drawn situation, you know you have somebody who is resisting destruction.

Now beware of somebody who no longer resists destruction but just is it. Lucrezia Borgia — historic example. She was destruction, see? She was the destruction.

You would, I am sure, have to work out the automaticity. It would be necessary for you to do this Union Station sort of thing. (I'm just passing you along dope as it accumulates here.) So there is that step which could intervene, there, and become another step to clearing.

Now, we've had one case already that we had to give up the ghost on and say well, we'll step back into this. This person is total destruction. We ran her on a Union Station-type process, took her outside, showed her people, had her invent ways to destroy these various people, one after the other — took over the automaticity of destruction. And all of a sudden this preclear began to sail right on upstairs, because the destruction had been taken over. You got that?

Yes?

Male voice: Is there any way that you know of now to spot this so that you can avoid wasting the original fifty hours?

Oh, look at their eyes. Best method I know of. There's a little glee in the situation or a little gleam about it. If it looks — they look like they're, "That's — rrowm!" You know?

This is not a usual case, by the way. I don't know that there are any here.

Yes?

Female voice: And how do you know when this is flat, when you're running that Union Station? When the person is able to confront the people they destroyed?

No. That would be one symptom. It would be beginning to get flat when they were able to invent methods of destroying the people and still look at them.

Female voice: Oh, that's what you meant?

That would be — that would be one little ridge passed over. But the one that would come about is when they really did invent it.

Female voice: Oh.

They stopped running off the dramatization and actually did start to get in and pitch. They were themselves, then, for the first time at cause-point.

Here you actually have a cause-effect line which has swapped ends. The person is being cause by being the effect and so forth.

Does that answer your question?

Female voice: Yes.

The actual one is: When do they actually invent it?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

You bet.

Yes?

Male voice: What is the best test for invisible field? I understand there's been some new discovery on that and that. . . It had an enemy that. . .

I'm giving you the best new discovery on an invisible field right this minute.

Male voice: Oh, that is?

Making the body invisible. Attainment of bodhi or state of Clear by making the body invisible.

Male voice: Oh, I know.

And you generally get that as a symptom of an invisible field.

Male voice: Oh, I see.

It's something that's coming in on a person. It's invisibility sweeping in on the person.

Male voice: And how does that affect a preclear as you're auditing him?

He goes awful slow.

Male voice: Okay.

Or it's terribly resistive. Or you're just not making your headway.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

You go round and round and round on this person, and you don't seem to be able to get anywhere in particular with it. You don't get changes, in other words. It's actually best answered by the Auditor's Code: "Continue to run a process as long as it produces change and no longer." Well, conversely, of course, you don't run a process very long which isn't producing any change.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

And this is the main stumbling block — this destruction manifestation confused with getting Clear. This person is actually, usually by the way, not around willingly. I'm now talking about the person who won't be willing to be cleared, by the way. You get somebody and they have to be forced into auditing, and that sort of thing. They're usually on a total destruction bent. That doesn't apply to anybody here. See? Interesting.

I'm telling you a phenomenon you may not at all run into. But if you find a screen resistive or something, why, maybe just two or three hours of this, "You invent a method of destroying that person (indicated person)," around outside, may speed it up enormously.

Yes?

Male voice: And maybe — this may be the opposite or not: I remember one time last week the preclear happened to mention that my acknowledgments, just the last — a few of them in that last — were not coming through too strong. Well, I took a look at my — we're running cellos. My god, there were mock ups of cellos around there, she's mocking them up heavy. Now then, when I would give the acknowledgment, as I usually did it strongly, it would destroy the mock-up. If I didn't quite get the acknowledgment there, the mock-up would stay there. Now, why . . .

That is the basic phenomenon of acknowledgment.

Male voice: Okay. In other words, is there any . . .

That's the "Great Okay." The "Great Okay" would wipe out every facsimile in the whole universe.

Male voice: I see. In other words, there — there's nothing unusual about that, or… That is standard phenomena.

Male voice: That's standard phenomena. Thank you.

Yes?

Male voice: If you started to use this Invent a Method of Destruction process on a person — on a preclear — and the preclear refused to do the process, what would be the next step? Just absolutely refused to do it.

Well, the person — in the first place, you would have violated your second step if the person refused to do the process.

Now, you under stand the steps of clearing consist of CCH 0, get the preclear under control and run your mock-ups — Creative Process, six sides. Clear the field and run this six-side proposition. All right. Now, those are the basic steps of Clear.

This other one would come in, that I've just given you about destruction — would be CCH 0. And then the next one would be, get the preclear under control. You do that with SCS and Connectedness, you see? And then your step on destruction, and then to the subjective clearing process. So that it merely means if your preclear did not do that (to answer your question very directly), you would simply have skimped your getting the preclear under control and would have to go right straight back through the process of under control. If you don't get a preclear under control the first time, if you have to get him under control again, you actually injure the case a little bit and make a slow rise, there, for a while, because the person has already got out from under you. So to regain it is harder than to have established it in the first place. So you always very carefully establish control, particularly before you do this.

But the odd part of it is, in Dianetics we used to say, "If you could just get the mind to do what the mind is doing you've got it made." Well, when the mind is doing totally "destroy" they do this process. The most resistant preclear who's just about to blow a session, oddly enough, will go out and do this process just (snap) bang! It's quite remarkable.

Okay?

Male voice: I see. Thanks.

You bet.

Yes?

Male voice: Well, a year and a half ago, there was a process about mocking up a wall and touching your nose — could we use some such variant in this clearing a field?

No. Why?

Male voice: I thought they might — it might be handy — it seemed to be a perfect process.

Yes. Yes. But actually that is the same step of mocking up something and pushing it into the body. You know, the complete classic step on this "Mock up a terminal like the field and push it into the body" also contains "Keep it from going away." You know that?

Yes?

Female voice: What about the subjective process of destroying a mock-up, front of that body . . .

It works.

Female voice: . . . behind that body? Is that — is that the same . . .

It's a subjective variation . . .

Female voice:. . . of the Union Station . . .

. . . of this objective process.

Female voice: Uh-huh. Oh, I see. So you run it subjectively. And it works just as well, or it takes longer?

' No, it, as a matter of fact, works a little better to chase them outside.

Female voice: Oh. Better to do it outside.

Yeah. And when you're taking over an automaticity, automaticities take over most easily in the presence of a great deal of havingness. See? Yes. As — automaticities sweep in as you reduce havingness; automaticities sweep out as you increase havingness. So therefore, running this — this is the same process, you see? But running it on bodies outside, if the weather makes it possible at all, of course, is the best thing to do.

Yes.Yes?

Female voice: I was going to ask about how long should it take to clear a resistive field?

About how long should it take?

Female voice: Yes.

Oh, if I was fooling around on it five or six hours, I'd think something was awfully wrong, just to give you what my look at it would be.

Female voice: Well, then . . .

That's not necessarily your look at it. But I'd think that was kind of sour.

Female voice: Well, what would you say — would you recommend that if it's getting to be any such amount of time that something else be run?

Well, I just — I'd get experience first, and then just inspect the field and look at the guy physiologically and say, "Well," — begging the pardon of the ladies being present — I'd say, "this is a bitch kitty," and take him outside. Get the idea? This person is evidently just packed in solid darkness, eighteen feet thick, and it's all gluey, and — the constituency [consistency] — and they don't handle it easily and they apparently go anaten and so on. I'd take a run at it, though, subjectively, just in case.

I've cleared up most of the fields I've cleared up, by the way, in a half an hour. That's me, though. I mean, I'm not trying to do anything about that or even call my auditing better than yours or something like that. But I am saying that that is as long as I have given to it, and with good results, without having to do something else.

Yes?

Male voice: When you say "clear up the field" you mean until they break clear of observation of a sphere around the individual. . .

What is Clear?

Male voice: . . . of their present time environment?

You didn't hear me here Friday night?

Male voice: No, I went home.

Yeah. Well, there's a test for this: "Close your eyes. What are you looking at?"

The fellow says, "Nothing."

You say, "Well, look at the room," (keeping his eyes still closed). "What do you see?"

He says, "Nothing."

And I say, "Well, what's between you and the room then?"

You go over this several times. You got that? "Close your eyes. Look at the room. What are you looking at?"

He says, "Nothing, nothing, nothing …"

Hey, now wait a minute, he ought to at least be seeing his eyelids, see? And if he's seeing nothing, he's doing a very obsessive flinch. So if you go over that a few times, he'll eventually find a field. There must be a field there or he would see the room. I mean, it's as easy as this. See, there's nothing to that. He would never be looking at nothing, you see?

Male voice: No.

All right. Now, as we clean this up all the way, we would get the final test of a clear field this way: This would be the final test, see? You say, "Close your eyes. Look at the room. What do you see?"

He says, "I see blackness."

You say, "What is it?"

He says, "My head, my eyelids."

You say, "Fine. Mock up something. Look at it. Is there anything between you and the mock-up?"

He says, "Nothing."

You say, "Fine." (snap) He's got a clear field. Those are the tests for it, don't you see?

Now, if he was outside of his head and you said, "Close your eyes, look at the room," and he says, "Yes."

You say, "What do you see?"

He says, "The room." He's got a clear field. In other words, he's holding no interposition between that, but he would be seeing the room.

Then, therefore, anybody who doesn't see the room has got a field of some sort or another. Well, this tells you that about 99 percent of your preclears have fields and don't even suspect it. But they clean quick.

Another thing that you should be doing is clearing this business about mock-up. "You mock up something." "What can you mock up?" Spend a little time on this. Don't just sail into it. Because the basic automaticity is form, and the automaticity of form will catch up with him. For instance, he's mocking it up but the same phenomena I talked about in the lecture is in his road. He mocked it up, but it is a picture of the wall, therefore he doesn't feel it's his mock-up. So therefore if you have him mock up simple shapes and objects, why, he finally does find out that he is mocking it up. If you get over that step fast, then you'll find clearing is fast. You understand? And it's worthwhile just putting in a little time on it. "What can you mock up? Oh, you can?" And get him to handle it and mock it up a few times and fool around with it, you know, until he gets a little bit of a certainty before you sail into a complicated process with it. Get over that one. That one is probably hanging fire on every preclear that's on the preclear list here this week.

You say, "What can you mock up?" And the fellow says, "I can mock up a man."

Well, personally, I doubt it. You know why I doubt it? Because he's mocking up a picture of a man that is probably taking its shape or form from an actual man, and therefore he himself has no certainty on it at all. Another answer would be to hand him a piece of paper and say, "All right, draw a man."

He says, "Well, I couldn't do that."

Well, wait a minute, if he can't draw a man like Rembrandt, he certainly can't mock one up. You understand? But he can draw a sugar cube; he can draw one of these crazy slate houses — you know, I mean the kind the kids drew on their slates. He can draw a ball bearing. You understand? He could draw an egg. You see, in other words, his automaticity of form must be bypassed in order to give him conviction.

And you'll take somebody that's been happily mocking up men and complicated tapestries and everything, and you all of a sudden say, "All right, mock up a ball bearing. Can you mock up a ball bearing?"

The guy says, "Yeah. Well, I'll try." And all of a sudden, whew! "Wow! Does this feel different!" You know, he is mocking up this thing. "Wow!" You'd be amazed at what tremendous (snap) zing the guy will get out of this. Simplicity of form is a very necessary adjunct to this.

I didn't mean to beat that question to death, but it was definitely on the groove.

Yes?

Male voice: Well, I found that color was another one on that, too. That is a major automaticity . . .

Yeah.

Male voice: … on colors.

Uh-huh.

Male voice: Get the guy to mock up the color, too.

Uh-huh.

Male voice: And…

Oh, yeah.

Male voice: . . . it was about equally important as form.

Right. Right. If he ain't Rembrandt, he's not going to mock it up. You'll be amazed just after you give a person security and certainty on being able to mock up simple form — and your point is very well taken — color. After you've given him this, he will be able to do some interesting things with his pencil. I've already put it to test. Person all of a sudden is able to draw, and he never could draw before. Fascinating.

Yes?

Female voice: Well, in my case it's just the opposite. I was able to draw very well and paint, and I lost the ability — can't do it. I can hardly draw a …

Well, you go back to simplicity of form and you'll be all set.

All of these abilities, a person has a tendency to put them on automatic. When they start coming off automatic, they get lost. I have actually cost a preclear his ability to speak English. And for a couple of hours could speak nothing but "Geranium" or something that nobody knew what it was. All of his language was on a machine. He himself could not speak. Rather fantastic. And if I'd dropped him right at the middle of it, we would have had the village idiot, don't you see, according to everybody. Well, I just kept up doing what I was doing, we came out at the other end. And now he began to speak like an Oxford professor. But he was speaking; he was doing the speaking. He hadn't been before. You get the idea?

Where you have an ability to paint or something like that, and a person did it, and he said, "Well, I can do that, and some force is making me do that — that isn't mine," he disowns it a little bit but keeps doing it. Now, we audit it, it comes back over here and then returns to him. And in the transition — in the transition it'll be lost somewhere, no matter how briefly, it'll go. It's very interesting. I've had preclears cease to be able to walk, cease to be able to talk, and so forth. Now, I would have been quite frightened if I'd not known about this transfer from automatic to self — very often carries a total non compos mentis.

Female voice: Do some people pick up lots of valences, and other people only pick up one or two?

I don't know. Some people are versatile about it.

Actors: Actors are about the wildest thing to process you ever processed in your life — you're always processing a valence. This is a good tip for you: I always clear with an actor the valence I'm processing, by doing — asking him, "Now, what should a preclear or a patient act like?"

"Well, just like they did in East Lynne, of course."

This is all I do: I'm clearing up finding a preclear, see? I try to clear that valence up. And one very famous actress, one time, really started to snap and pop on this. I audited her for about an hour and said, boy, that's just intolerable. She was going through the "perfect patient." You know? I said, "This actress has just acted it too many times — this is it." And sure enough, in a picture she had done a psychoanalytic patient. She was just doing this valence for me. And, I cleaned this up, wiped this up very thoroughly, grooved it down to the point of — and found a preclear, and after that, boy, we just started to do a rocket climb. Because she was a very able person to begin with.

Yes?

Male voice: You gave the test for a clear field: that if he were in his head and you told him to look and see his head, for example . . .

See blackness.

Male voice: Yeah, inside of the head and . . .

If he were outside, he'd see the room.

Male voice: …if he were outside. What if he couldn't get outside?

I said if he were outside.

Male voice: Yeah.

I didn't say . . .

Male voice: If he were inside?

If he were inside he'd see total blackness, but he'd be able to see any mock-up he mocked up with great clarity, with nothing between him and it.

Male voice: This would be a clear field whether he could get outside or not?

Yeah.

Female voice: Yes. That's a clear field.

Male voice: Okay, check.

Yeah, you've got a lot of people that'll say, "I see blackness." Then you say what the heck, this guy has got a field. No, he hasn't got a field. A skull is a field any day of the week.

Female voice: Yeah. As long as he sees — as long as he sees nothing that's between himself and . . .

That's right.

Female voice: . . . the mock-up, then it's clear.

So the second he says blackness, you say, "Well, mock up a mock-up. Do you see anything between you and the mock-up?"

He says, "No." Well, you got it made.

Yes?

Male voice: Then your first actual probability is nobody is ever in his head.

Oh yeah.

Male voice: I mean the picture. The picture . . .

A person can be in the pictures, which are in his head.

Female voice: Oh . . .

This is the . . .

Male voice: Isn't that a field?

Huh?

Male voice: Doesn't that constitute a field?

Yes, he'd have a field. But here's the point: A person isn't necessarily held in his head by an energy mass of his own making; he may simply be in his head by postulate.

Male voice: Yeah.

And he would simply move out.

Second male voice: Hm. So Chuck's question wouldn't arise, then, because he couldn't just be in his head with no field and not get out.

Oh, he could get out.

Male voice: Thank you.

That just isn't part of the test. That's all. He was reading too much into the test. That was the only thing I was correcting. A person could have no field, be in his head, he could also move out on postulate. But Chuck wasn't talking about exteriorization, he was saying that if a fellow happened to be in his head and you ask him what he was looking at and he said blackness, he doesn't have to have any field at all. As a matter of fact, a thetan nearly always has a little field of one kind or another, whether he likes it or not. And after he's Clear, he'll probably mock up a little field of one kind or another — just to get him started on his next cycle.

Yes?

Male voice: As I see it then, first, if the thetan had a completely clear field, by definition nothing interposing between that which he was — between him and that which he was looking at. . .

That's right.

Male voice: . . . he'd be clear anyway.

Well, if it was total.

Male voice: As I say, if it was total.

If it was total. And he was in control of his own actions. We'd have to add that to it.

Male voice: Well, he would be, actually, in that condition.

Oh, he might be postulating that he wasn't.

Female voice: Hmmmm!

Hmmmm! Now we're really shaving carrots.

Yes?

Female voice: Would a person be in his head so other people could find him?

Could be. I imagine there are eight billion reasons why a fellow would be in his head. I find out that it's necessary sometimes to be in a head.

One of the ways — one of the best ways — I work on an automaticity of closing my eyes. And I close my eyes so I can see blackness and just use the eyelids as an automaticity for it. But then I have to be back of my head. And I found out that that is very silly, to close my eyes to shut off the automaticity of sight and so — first place, because I can also use my jacket.

Okay. We're way overdue. That's mostly because it's Monday morning. Are you a little bit further along in your way now?

Audience: Yeah.

You understand a little bit better what you're doing here?

Female voice: Yep.

Hm? Think you can do it better than you did week before last?

Audience: Yes.

All right, let's go.

Thank you.