Well, part two of this Monday of whatever the date is.

Male voice: 17th.

Is this the 17th? Monday the 17th.

Continuing on with the basic anatomy here of Creative Processing, using this graph showing this parabola that goes from 40.0 down through 20.0 to 0.0 for the MEST universe, and from 40.0 down through 20.0 to 0.0 of the MEST universe of self, the interest of the auditor is to move the preclear over into a possession of his own creations and to enable the preclear to conserve, alter or destroy his own creations of matter, energy, space and time.

I invite your attention very strongly to space and time. And if we had no definition for time this would be a very difficult feat. But we happen to have a definition for time. And the definition is havingness.

Now, let's look at 40.0. We have represented be, have and do as a triangle in past lectures. And certainly enough be, have and do is a triangle. In order to achieve a level of identity and accomplishment in action one has to have all three corners of this triangle. But this triangle is actually plottable on our Tone Scale. And we find 40.0 — on down for a ways from 40.0, clear on down actually to 0.0, but getting less and less and less and less and less — is be, which is space. So we have up here — at 40.0, we have be and there's lots of be at 40.0. In fact that's all there is — that's all there is.

Now, there's a theoretical point above 40.0 where we have no be. We don't even have be. That's a theoretical point. Lord knows where that point is. Maybe at 1000.0. I don't know where that point is.

Now, we start down the line here and we get to 20.0. Now, above and below 20.0 we have energy. And by the way, this is true — this is true for both the right-hand side (the MEST universe) and the left-hand side (mest self). That's true on both parabolas, that at 20.0 you get energy as a peak. Now, of course, energy extends up there to maybe 38.0, and it extends down to — way down to almost 0.0. There's this energy but it's at a peak.

You'd say 20.0, that's predominant energy. Predominant energy — not predominant beingness, not predominant time, not predominant space, .and not predominant have.

So that is be up there and that be up there is space at 40.0, and this energy down here at 20.0, of course — 20.0 is action on the Tone Scale and we've got down here, do. 20.0 — optimum action point.

Now, down here at 0.0 we have optimum have. Have. Why is it that you're always measuring time by MEST objects only? MEsT objects and their operation in space are the measure of time. It is where the sun is — where the sun is, where the clock hands are, where the shadow falls, how long it takes the water to run down a riverbed, how long it takes something to melt, such as a candle — these are all measures of time. It's how long, something or other to do with solids — "how long solids."

Now, it's "how long solids" in relation to space, gives you your measure of time so that just plain have itself doesn't tell you time to be used in action. But just plain have itself is action — pardon me — is time. Have is time. But when you start to get have, we get this solid object changing in space, we have to regard it from the point of 20.0 and we get doingness. You see. I mean, the measurement of time or change is doingness.

See, we've got a theoretical arbitrary point, and that's have. But have all by itself at 0.0 does not immediately include any higher point on the Tone Scale. It doesn't include any higher point on the Tone Scale — as itself. But the second we see it in relationship to higher points on the Tone Scale, we get our manifestations of change. But it's change of what? It's the change of a solid at 0.0 in a space, and space is predominantly 40.0. You see?

Now, you get a have, an object at 0.0 altering in 40.0 and we get a do at 20.0. And your aspect of time is actually only confused, when it is confused, because you are viewing time from a higher point than an object. And therefore you're viewing an object's alteration in a space. And if you view an object's alteration in a space, it tells you two things immediately. One, you must be able to view — and I've never seen a dead man look at his wristwatch yet. And so, you see, he has no criterion. Now, it actually requires a judgment in order to behold time in terms of change.

Now, you ask that chair over there what time it is and you're not going to get any answer at all. But you look at that chair in relationship to the action through which the chair has been and it'll tell you what time it is. We'll take that chair at the moment it came out of the factory — it's just been through the action of being made into a MEST object — and now we will take it ten years hence.

And somebody will come along and they'll say the style — an idea, or something of the sort — tells you that chair's that old. But actually the main criterion which they will use is how badly is the chair off. That is, how much action has this chair undergone? And that gives you the chair telling time. But that's how much it was changed.

And get that viewpoint. The object is changed from a higher level only. It's not changed from its own level. It always takes a higher level to change an object. In other words, it takes space and doingness. It takes space and action to change the characteristics of an object.

Time, then, is the congealment of energy into and toward endurance as an object. And the greater the endurance of the object, the more time you have. It isn't the more time — now, you see, the only difficulty you would possibly have in understanding this is to persist in viewing an object as though time were another abstract. If you persisted in viewing an object as though time were another abstract and time was something else except this object, you would be making the mistake of applying your judgment in action and space to the object, and creating the abstract. See?

The second that you are in space and it's in space and you say its action, capabilities and potentialities, movements and changes are so-and-so and so-and-so, and say, "That is the time of this chair" . . . When you say — when "That is the time of this chair," you have immediately said, "Space and energy with regard to chair," and then you've set up an abstract which nobody ever had a definition for, and you've said, "That abstract now is time."

So we would get, actually: time in action is energy. "Time in action" is what you mean by that abstract. Time in action. And that could also be "object in action is time" — what you understand by time. But the time that you're dealing with is always the object. It's just always the object. When you view it from space and energy levels, you say, "Well, of course, then time has space and energy in it."

Well, every time you say time has space and energy in it you're talking about something else. You're talking about the triangle again. You're talking about all three corners of it simultaneously. We've got to get a precise definition for one corner of this triangle in order to use this triangle. You see, one of the reasons why man is in terrible condition and why a thetan got in trouble in the first place, is he never got this thing straight — this thing I'm talking about right now. You have space, energy and object.

And what do we find here on this Tone Scale? We have all space with nothing happening in it. And then we have space with a motion, a created level in it, and that's energy. And then as more and more energy is created, and as space condenses, we get an object.

We come right on down the Tone Scale from total beingness without energy or objects, down toward total energy in space with energy, which, in congealing, we will get 0.0. If you look at it this way, well, you'll get the 0.0 of an object.

I mean, if you look at it this way, is — supposing space could be condensed, and if you condensed space just so much it would manifest itself as energy, and if you condensed it just so much more it would manifest itself as an object. You see? I mean, you could look at it that way. That doesn't happen to be true, even vaguely true. But just to fix it in your minds, you can look at space at 40.0 having no energy in it, and then that it's less space at 20.0, but it's got energy in it, and then it's much less space at 0.0 but it is an object. An object is solidified energy.

Chemistry — when you burn coal in a fire, you're getting an object turning back into energy. Now, you go the other way around and we'll throw all of this energy — and there are actually methods of doing this — you throw all of this energy into a space and you condense it and what do you get? You get a solid.

Now, an example of that is to fill up a chamber full of air and condense that air and you will get a block of frozen air if you condense it down. You reduce its space and you get an object. So if you want to see how much somebody has got his space reduced just find out how much objects he's got. It would theoretically be good therapy just to have somebody throw away a lot of things.

That's mostly the trouble you find with people is they have an awful trouble — a lot of trouble — getting rid of things. Well, they're having trouble getting rid of their aberrations, and you turn right around and you'll find out they also would not any more throw away an old pipe that they have had for twenty years and is in terrible condition and nobody would ever smoke it, and you'll find out they won't throw this away. Well, how do you expect them to get rid of something volatile way up the Tone Scale here, known as energy? They won't throw away an object.

Now, they won't throw away an object, they're afraid to let objects out of their sight, they have great apprehensions about objects, and yet you ask them to step out of their bodies. Whoa, no! Hm-mm. No, they just can't do that. And the reason they can't do that is a very simple reason; they just got objects and no space.

And what you've got to do is give them more space and less objects. And the way you get them — give them more space and less objects is simply to bring them up to the level of action on the subject, and you do that with Creative Processing. And you do it with Creative Processing by first making them get rid of very inconsequential objects which they mock up.

And you make them mock up enough objects until they realize that they have an inflation in that item and can therefore spend it freely. And if you make them mock up those objects enough and often enough and enough of them they will get over the most parsimonious scarcity level on that particular object. Let's take this fellow, he can't get rid of objects; every time he tries to get rid of an object, he can't even see an object to get rid of.

Why, what are you going to do with him? You're going to give him — get him to chuck away black pennies, or something. Or let's say he's got — he's holding on to black space. Well, he obviously wants some black space or he wouldn't be holding on to black space. And if he wants to hold on to black space he's trying to hold on to the last frugal remnants he has of 40.0, he thinks. He's holding on like grim — with great grimness to the last remnants of his own space. He hasn't got any more space. Therefore if he hasn't got any more space, he obviously has an object, you see? And if that object is obviously going to be confused with his body, so he's not going to move out.

What do you get him to do? You get him to rig up and mock up black space until he can have more and more and more black space. And he gets more and more and more black space, and now hold on to more and more and more black space, and eventually you'll be able to get him to knock off a corner of it and throw it away. His case will be solved at that moment. If he can have enough black space to a point where he can be a spendthrift on the subject of black space . . . It's at least space, you understand. It hasn't got anything in it, but it's at least space.

Now, there's about your low level of … Now, possibly this fellow has enormous potentials and he wouldn't be holding on to it so hard if he didn't have. He's probably below the level of most people who live, if he's doing that.

All right. Now, let's look at this, then, and see this triangle very clearly for what it is — very clearly for what it is. The triangle of be, have, do should be actually be, do, have. They are interrelated; the object cannot exist without some space. The energy, actually — as is demonstrated by every electrical generator you ever tried to turn on, by every coal fire you ever tried to start burning without anything on the grate — the energy depends to some degree upon having space and having an object.

Every time you've tried to start a fire without any fuel, and you just put some flame, not even with a match, inside a grate which isn't — hasn't any coal on it or any wood or any paper or anything, and you try to get a fire lighted there that will keep on burning, you just remind yourself at the time you're doing this that you're defying one of the primary laws with which we're dealing. And that primary law is, is in order to get some energy you've got to have an object.

Now, you can even create energy and compress it into an object, but that is essentially what you're doing. Create some energy and compress it into an object, then you can take that object and it'll again release some energy. Tricky, huh? That's actually the way you got coal.

Here were a lot of fish and they were born and they were little tiny spores and they grew up. And they lived on chemicals — and they lived on chemicals and seawater and sunshine. And out of all of this space-energy sort of thing they were able to make an object which could be gotten ahold of and eaten, and so they had a little bit bigger fish, and it ate those little bit smaller fish.

And then one day the whole world caved in on a whole bank of this sort of thing — crash! — and you got oil. And I wonder how you got that oil? It was very carefully manufactured out of space and energy. But it sure did get converted a lot of times before it got to be space and energy. It got converted quite a bit. But it did this cycle. Here it was, all this space and then it went through this conversion and many sublevels, and then one day it had to be fallen on and compressed, and then you got oil. You also got asphalt.

Now, here was a tree and the tree made chlorophyll from sunlight and the chemicals found in the ground and so on. And it grew and it grew and it grew and it grew, making object out of space, object out of space, object out of space. And then one day — one day, the world caved in on it and gave it a tremendous amount of pressure, condensing its space even more, and now they dig that up and you burn it and it's coal. That's typical of that.

But you're getting the energy back that was already made. You see, it took the space — here was practically nothing but solid beingness — I mean, empty beingness. It was the beingness of the material universe, and then gradually from other objects, and releasing and so on, we got energy, and the energy got condensed more and more and more and we finally got a solid object. And, boy, is that coal timeless. Whee! From your standpoint it lasts forever, but that means it's got time in it.

See, it just had these things — it's just reversed. You say the coal is timeless, meaning it lasts forever. Well, boy, something that lasts forever's sure got time. In fact, it is time. And this coal will sit around in the ground for millions of years, and you dig it up and leave it on the surface and it'll last for a long, long time. Except, of course, when you throw it on the grate and convert it into energy.

Now, if you take an engram bank that is solid matter — and it's practically solid, it's solid — the preclear is of course in the emotional state known as apathy. The reason he's in an apathy is a very, very good reason, is he hasn't got any energy and he hasn't got any space. And that's the definition of apathy.

All right. So this preclear is a solid lump of aberration. Now, how you going to — it'd be one thing if you could touch a match to him and expend him out as if he were a lump of coal. Well, it's true, he'll last forever — as what? As an object. But he's interested in living. He's interested in expanding his beingness. And therefore, by Creative Processing, you educate him, you might say, into realizing that his beingness can be expanded.

Very fortunately for you, we are not dealing with mud. If we were dealing with mud we would never get anybody processed, except by touching a match to them. If man was exclusively and only a carbon-oxygen engine, if he was just that and no more, we'd be done for. He isn't.

He can create space, of all things. He can create energy, and the fellow is holding on to the object called time because he knows very well that he can't create any more space. He knows very well he's got to hold on to what he's got, and he can't even change it, because if you change something, you're liable to lose it, you see. And he can't even change this object. Why? Because he hasn't any energy. And so he's got to hold on to this object. And this object is his concept of what he has left, which isn't very much.

And now with Creative Processing, any way you can get into it, you demonstrate to him that he can create space and energy. And if he can create space, energy, objects . . . What would you think if you could take a preclear who was very bad off and you could actually make him condense energy enough to toss a ball out on the floor? And you had a white ivory ball sitting on the floor. And the dog would come in and sniff at the ball and knock it around the room and the preclear could see and feel.

You know, he wouldn't be very anxious to hold on to all this old junk that he's packed away. He just wouldn't be anxious about it at all. Why is he holding on to a body? It's the only one he's got — he knows.

Well, you start mocking up bodies, all you're doing is shaking at the foundations of the truth of the case, and that is that he can create space. And therefore he can create energy. And if he can create space and energy, he can condense them into objects and of course has time.

Space without any object, of course, has no time in it. Believe me, that is real immortality. Space without an object. Down at the bottom of the scale an object without space — boy, has that thing got time. It'll last forever. It'll last forever. You've got the same condition. That's why they look circular. They're not circles.

All right. And in the center of the thing is, you get objects — you can create space, and then create some energy, and then get an object — that's why the fellow has a moving time track of his own. How do you suppose he's ever kept abreast of this illusion called the physical universe? Very simple, it's very simple. Because he created the space and time which he was viewing.

He does so continuously hour after hour after hour after hour. He creates the space, he creates the energy, he creates the object. And he just keeps it up at exactly the regulated pace decreed by the physical universe. And next lecture immediately after this one — next half an hour — I'm going to tell you how that comes about.

But here he is, creating like mad! He's creating space, he's creating energy, and he's making objects. He's making them all over the place. He's adding to these objects just in all directions. And if you don't believe that he is adding to the mass of existence, try and process a psychotic. Here is a fellow who is fresh out of all space, he's fresh out of all energy, and he doesn't have anything but time, and he's got time to such an extent he's got one lump of time and that one lump is one engram and he's running this thing off as life.

He's just running this one platter, turning it, turning it, turning it, turning — that's all he's got; it's going to last forever. That's MEST universe immortality he's reached there. Well, you process this fellow for a little while and if you got outside of your body and took a look at your body — you'd take a look at your face, for instance, and you would find . . . And by the way, when you process, it's very amusing, you get the glee of insanity. He's pushing energy out, only it's irresponsibility and insanity.

In other words, unplaced — it's unplaced, unidentified, at random energy. And it hits the individual who is processing him and it actually coats his skin. Actually does. He tries to get rid of this stuff and he'll feel the horrible emotion in this stuff. It's really kind of grim. And yet here's this creature who obviously has no space, no energy. And here he is, adding to your physical body's mass. Mm-hm. Fascinating. This fellow has lost pace with and he's no longer able to discern what he's creating.

Now this sounds quite interesting to you. It sounds interesting to you to the degree of gawp. You just — I mean, what on earth? You mean to say that there — this heavy, solid universe which we see around us is being created by people? Continually? Boy, it sure is.

Now you see, there's several ways to prove things. And that is only a postulate, and when I say, "It sure is," that's for my money. Scientifically, we could say "apparently." "Apparently, according to the best evidences at hand, and some empirical evidence which has been offered and accumulated by a few undoubtedly emasculate and foolish fellows who apologize for their own beingness and existence very humbly, who keep their foul breath from your face — according to these people, it tends to demonstrate under certain circumstances that the MEST universe possibly is, one might say, begging your pardon, not to go too far about, is an illusion."

Well, I'm just saving you all that and I'm just saying the thing is an illusion, just bluntly. And one of the ways we prove that it's an illusion — and it isn't only just one way, but the most obvious way is — is what solves it? What solves it?

Well, let's look at it just bluntly, and let's say we want to do something with a piece of MEST. Well, we have to get an idea, don't we? And we have to figure out a piece of space for the idea to go in and we get the MEST together and it matches together, and it works as well as we get an idea about it.

Well, that's funny, isn't it? Well, you're going to make a tape recorder, we have to get a lot of ideas and there's a lot of other people had ideas and they all kind of go together and the next thing you know we've got a tape recorder and if everybody did it well the tape recorder worked. And if they didn't do it all well, it doesn't work.

And then it has to do with whether or not it's handled as an idea, and .. . In other words, here you are just pouring this terrific creative effort continually — create, create, create, create, create, create — and busily handling these pieces of MEST, handling them. And you know you're handling them; you know very well you're handling them. You know very well they exist. How do you know they exist? Because you can touch them. You can bang one piece of MEST against another piece of MEST and know they're banged together.

In Creative Processing, one of the earliest steps you will reach with your preclear is getting him to take one piece of imagined object and one piece of imagined object, and have them bang together, and feel the bang of their meeting, and hear them bang. And if he can't hear them bang very well have him put some air between the objects and himself — it conducts the sound better.

Now, there, in other words, is the evidence of the reality of the real universe blowing up in smoke. The other thing is, is the more real people think it is, the less well they are. And that's its awfulest damnation — the more real they think it is. And the other thing is, is that Creative Processing works on a ratio of just thousands to one in terms of time. I mean, Creative Processing works right now and direct MEsT Processing is long and arduous.

Now, continuing this on a breakdown of the Tone Scale with regard to be, do and have, on the — November the 17th — we have here 20.0, then, is experience, isn't it? That's where experience is. Experience is made up of objects and being, and that's experience. And midpoint between total being and total object would be an experience.

Male voice: Yes.

Now, what do we have there at 20.0? Then we have energy. This energy, we have seen, can become congealed into an object. All right, if it can become congealed into an object, what is an engram? An engram is energy which has stayed in suspension in a heavy state and which is tending to become an object.

The command power of an object over beingness is great, not small. And an object can have command power to the direct degree that it exists and is unknown. Now, that's a horrible thing, isn't it? If it has a communication line, it could be said to exist for the being. That thing which has no communication line to the being actually doesn't exist for the being.

So we have a definition for existence. Those things exist with which you can communicate. If you can't communicate with something — you know, communication is perceive, the various perceptions and so forth — if you can't in some fashion or other communicate with something, it doesn't exist. Is that right?

For instance, right out here in the middle of the street there could be there a gorgeous statue by Praxiteles, just beautiful, and it could occupy the whole street, but if nobody could communicate with it in any way, shape or form, lorries could drive on through it. It would not exist for you.

And as a matter of fact, I said it was there, but you can't communicate with it, so therefore it doesn't exist. But the second I say it's there, your imagination kind of flicks at it and kind of sees that there you've started a communication of energy with an object which didn't exist but could be concentrated upon to exist.

Mystic practice is to a large degree devoted toward concentration to such a degree and extent that an object takes on real existence for others besides that person perceiving. That is not a complete statement of mysticism, but it has as one of its primary things that it crosses the border there with magic. It's concentration upon a nonexistence to create an existence, or concentration upon an existence to create a nonexistence.

Now, if you were to concentrate upon and agree upon the existence of a spirit, and you concentrated and agreed and agreed and concentrated and concentrated and agreed, you'd get a spirit. You bet your life. Of course you'd have various opinions about what this spirit was doing, but you would have a spirit. There's no doubt about that. It would come floating around and so on.

Now, what's truth, then? If all these things take place, then what's truth? Well, truth is that thing with which we can all communicate — with which we can all communicate. And the degree of truth is that degree of agreement we can attain. So the biggest truth there is, is an object. You get that? There's less truth in energy than in objects, and no truth at all in beingness.

And sure enough, you get an ultimate beingness and a person can shift his beingness all over the place, boy, does he vary. If he can shift his beingness all over the place — therefore you couldn't say that he could truly exist. There is no truth in his existence because he's so darn changeable. What we want in truth is consistency, and that's that.

So you get people from 4.0 down are starting to get worried about agreeing. They're starting to get very worried about agreeing, so they're starting to get very worried about truth. And the lower they go, the more worried they are about truth and the further they're departing from a flexibility and the more they are approaching a solidity. And when they've all agreed it's true, they're dead. That is the ultimate in truth. So what's truth? All truth is relative.

Now, what we're studying is the anatomy of and the laws of agreement. If we are studying the anatomy of and the laws of agreement, we are then studying that thing on which we have all agreed! Get that. So we're studying the point of common meeting ground all the way on the track. We're studying agreement and the various manifestations of agreement, and we're not studying anything else. Beyond that point we have tremendous flexibility, enormous flexibility. And to drive home what we have agreed upon, I've given you these graphs. That is a viewpoint on this agreement.

Now, you can see these and, by understanding the anatomy of this agreement, you are understanding the agreement itself. How did the agreement come apart? How does it come apart? Well, by understanding the anatomy of it and undoing it as an agreement. If you undo it as an agreement, you make your preclear well. And if you make him agree 100 percent, you kill him.

And that is primarily why some of the psychotherapies used in the past not only did not work but made people terribly dependent upon the psychotherapist and did not make the person well. Now, anybody who has been in that field won't argue with me too much about that, but they'll say, "At least we-got his mind quieted down and he ceased to be a wide menace to the society around him." Well, that's true, that's true. And that was their aim and goal.

Well, now, don't get your aim and goal mixed up with it and therefore don't mix up what you're doing with psychotherapy, because you're going on an opposite direction. You're not interested in psychotherapy; you're interested in these people from an anatomy of agreement.

Now, what is the agreement? The story of the agreement was this: is once upon a time the individual had his own space in which he had his own energy with which he had therefore his own objects. As the objects changed, he marked time. And he had a time track, then, for his own space and energy. Right? And he said, "This is all ours or all mine." He could influence it and he could start any of these impulses into existence that he cared to, he could start new energy into existence, and he could let his aesthetic .. .

And also, get this: the behavior pattern and the laws — what he called natural laws for his own universe just reigned supreme. Whether they were workable natural laws or not in this universe has no bearing upon it. For instance, he might have had a natural law on which everybody that he made in his universe agreed implicitly, and that is the fact that every time you go to a railroad station, you get a new hat. And that was a natural law, and that's how the people got new hats in his universe. They went to the railroad station and at that moment a new hat would appear.

He might have said, "Household pets which can fly at 20,000 feet are acceptable household pets. But household pets which are on the ground are not acceptable household pets." And that would have been a natural law, and all kinds of things would have worked out from this. All you have to have to have something logical, you see, is you lay down an arbitrary and then you proceed from this arbitrary in a logical sequence of explanation.

Now, there are some characters in books — I think Pangloss is a wonderful example of this, in Voltaire's Candide. He can explain everything to be exactly right and for the best. The doggonedest, weird coincidences and horrible circumstances all figure out in the long run for the best.

Now, undoubtedly in Pangloss's universe, the natural law was "Everything works out for the best." Now, whether or not this becomes a workable universe or not all depends on what you mean by a workable universe. Was it interesting? That would be its highest level of workability. Was it interesting? Because if it was interesting, there'd be motion in it. Boy, would there be randomity.

Now, in other words, what we're studying here is how you can composite a universe and what comes down on an inevitable average of agreement about universes, and this is what happens about universes. Now, that's what you're studying. And when you're studying the MEST universe you're studying a certain parade of agreements — a parade of agreements.

You're studying a series of postulates which resolve our total agreement with this wall. And what you're studying to do, is to undo the grip of this series of agreements upon the individual, when that series of agreements have upon the individual produced an effect which is painful or holds too much force or holds him too much imprisoned, and he is an ineffective individual. He's ineffective because he has agreed too much too hard.

And actually, what is the final end of agreement in the MEST universe? Death. It's a MEST universe, isn't it? It's trying to solidify into objects. Well, all right. You don't want any animate objects in this universe. Guy tries to get too animate in this universe, boy, does he get it.

So you're studying this anatomy, and that we call, for this universe, truth. We're not studying something that would be true for your universe, in terms of that. But we do know this: that when you do agree to that degree on those lines, then this kind of logic called "science" results. And that is the truth of science.

Now, you can accept these tenets or not, on a philosophic line. You are only trying to study these things at the moment on the therapeutic line. And the odd part of it is, is every time you can break an agreement between the preclear and the MEST universe, he's that much better. And when you fail to break the agreement between the preclear and the MEST universe, he's worse.

So, when you get a preclear out of his body and you say, "Now, you see that wall?"

And he says, "What wall?"

And you say, "Oh-oh, you ought to have agreed." And finally he does force himself and convince himself, outside the body, that he's seeing the wall, he finds himself back in the body again.

Why does this occur? It's because you've made him agree on the illusion which you have made him escape from. And then the second that you get him back into the Tone Scale level, the low Tone Scale level of being in agreement again, the agreement is effectively and effectually the agreement also to be in a body, so he's back in the body again and can't get out.

What you did when you sprung him was give him his own space. And there's no sense in railing at him then, if he has his own space, that he doesn't put the MEST universe in it. If he's got his own space and he puts the MEST universe in it, why, it's not his space anymore, is it? So if it's not his space anymore, he goes back into the body, boom!

You might ask me at this time, "Then is it true that he's outside his body?" Yes, sir — because space is space! And MEST "real universe," agreed-upon universe happens to be just one variety of space. And get off of this level of a terrific concentration on the MEST universe being the only universe, because that is not all the space there is, that is not all the energy there is.

It's something like — you've got this granary full of grain, and it's all yours. And there's one little drop of grain — one little piece of grain has gotten out and it's way over in another field someplace. And it's like, if you keep auditing, in trying to get a person just to get back into that groove — agreement, back into the groove of agreement, back into the groove of agreement again, it's like you being — just neglecting this silo, this beautiful billions and quadrillions of grains, just neglecting that and spending all of your time over here in this other field someplace trying to say, "Now, don't you see that grain?"

And the fellow says, "I can't see that grain."

"Well, now, you better see that grain."

And it's just as though you're saying, "Well, now, that's all the grain there is." Why don't you take him over and let him go over and look in that — look in the big bin? There's not only his time and space, but he could theoretically originate an infinity of times and spaces himself. In other words, an infinity of spaces which, through energy, he can put objects into. He can do that to infinity. And boy, is he free when he starts being able to do that. And he's as free as he's able to do that and no freer.

Now, let's see if there's any corroborative material on this. Let's look down the line and see if there is any side data on this which is good to have. Can you take this being and treat him in other ways and produce this same manifestation?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We can directly treat an individual so as to produce a state of complete agreement which borders upon complete death. And we find that we can get him to agree so heavily that he's in a state of death. And we can get him to agree himself to death, in other words. And the only way we can cure or alleviate this is to get him to disagree himself back into being alive. Now, you get those differences; those are quite important as differences.

What is this technique? It's known as hypnotism. Now, the way you hypnotize somebody is you get him into communication too heavily. In other words, you get him into a concentrated communication channel. This is saying, "You make the same kind of energy I'm making here, fellow." You've got him to agree on your energy level. The way you do that is hold up a bright object in front of him or something of this sort, or get him to concentrate upon your eye.

Or you want to mesmerize him, same thing. You reach over and stroke his arms across certain areas and you stroke them rhythmically enough until his body goes into vibration with your determinism at the level of stroking. That's mesmerism. It produces different effects: one puts the body in complete rapport and the other puts the energy manufacturing unit in complete rapport.

All right. You do this with sight, you can do this with touch, you can do this with anything. You get him to communicate, communicate. Well, communication, as we know, is agreement — A-R-C. ARC is a — maintains its own level. C and R maintain the same level as affinity, and agreement — which of course is reality — agreement maintains the same level as affinity and communication. So that's how you get him to agree. You come in sideways on that triangle, and you use C to get him into an A. Use C to get him into an agreement.

All right. You communicate, communicate, communicate, communicate, and you got him there. Okay, now you've got him real good. And you — now you get him to work it until he is no longer convinced that he controls his motor centers. Now, you get him to agree, then, that you control his motor centers. Then you get to agree so — he's agreeing, really, that it's your body. And you get him to agree that it's — his body is yours.

Now, the way you do this is you give his body commands in certain ways and eventually his arms will raise and lower without any consultation with him, and he'll be quite surprised to see his arms rise and drop and twist around and go into circles and his body walk around at your command when it won't at his.

All right. That's a physiological rapport for action. That's at 20.0; you got him, now, at 20.0. There's a sort of — right at the beginning of hypnotism — a merging of beingness, and of course, you've got his space, now. You're just taking this character over; you're getting him to agree 100 percent.

Now, you've got him into this state. What happens now? His — boy, mark this one — his thoughts and ability to create cease to be an ability to agree with the real universe, and become an ability to agree with your illusions, so that nothing seems incredible to him, so long as you say so.

Now, you can have this fellow have a kangaroo on his right palm and have it jump over into his left palm. You can put this fellow into any kind of clothing. He will be able to see this clothing; he'll be able to feel it. Now, I realize that man has so revolted from this sort of thing that very often hypnotism to the casual observer or the general listener has no great level of reality. I mean, it doesn't exist; nothing like this could exist.

Oh, yes. And it is about the most vicious aberrator there is. Eventually, even the hypnotist comes to you and says, "Oh, please, help me out," because he's in terrible shape. What's happened is, is he has overcome the self-determinism of so many people and has changed it so often that he has shaken his own abilities to pieces.

He is then in a monitoring capacity. And why did it shake him to pieces? Because it keyed him in. It's an overt act; it says "agree, agree, agree, agree, agree," and finally he finds himself agreeing, agreeing, agreeing, way back on the whole track, and there he goes. And he's in a bad way!.

If you ever get a hypnotist and this fellow (you all of a sudden say — well, he's a professional hypnotist or something of the sort) — well, for heaven's sakes, do something immediately about the hypnotism, because you aren't going to get anyplace. And do it on an overt act level. Just process it as such, or process it creatively in some fashion or other showing him taking over the control of various other things.

What'd he do? He made his own universe inside the MEST universe and made a universe which couldn't exist and it's convinced him completely of the nonexistence of his own universe. Oh, he gets — you can play this thing eighty ways from center and you still get an aberrated hypnotist.

But what happens to the patient? Some of the earliest stuff written on hypnotism said, "Hypnotism is serviceable as a therapy except that it creates an enormous level of dependency on the .part of the patient for the operator." And that is standard in text after text after text up through the last hundred years on the subject of hypnotism. No good. No good.

Now, you'll tell somebody once in a while — you tell somebody, "You won't stutter anymore, now, will you? Now, you agree that you won't stutter." It's just agree, agree, agree, agree, agree, agree. It's just wonderful. That's all, anything — you get him to agree on little things, then you get him to agree on big things. "Now, you won't stutter anymore, will you?"

Fellow says, "No, all right."

Fellow says, "You'll remember this in the future. Now, you will forget that I told you."

"Okay."

And you wake him up — in other words, startle him back into an awareness of the illusion called the MEST universe — and sure enough, about one case out of ten that you do this to won't stutter anymore. He'll be a hangdog boy, he'll be in terrible condition otherwise, but he won't stutter. You can guarantee that. Everything is kind of dim to him and kind of bad in general, but he won't stutter. You've done what you said you were going to do. Now, this is the course of hypnotism.

Hypnotism is a terrifically valid research tool because it demonstrates conclusively that the human mind can shift its concentration and no longer perceive the MEST universe but can be shifted over to perceive any universe called for — any universe. It also — you can test things like ESP, astral walking and so forth. You can hypnotize somebody and direct him around to various places and do all sorts of things.

Now, because nobody had any techniques, didn't know any of the anatomy of Homo sapiens, knew nothing about Theta Clearing, all this sort of thing, an awful lot of strange mishaps have occurred with hypnotism. Nobody's tried direct Theta Clearing with hypnotism and it's pointless, just like processing is pointless using hypnotism. Because you're just breaking him into a new agreement. You're breaking down any last ability he may have to disagree. You're breaking down his last ability to disagree, and when you've got that broken down, he's practically through, right then.

How is this level of agreement achieved? You get — can get somebody to agree with you under a hypnotic influence, he can agree to the doggonedest things. Great magnitude, great magnitude. You could probably fix him up royally. You could say, "All right …"

Now by the way, hypnotists are very, very amusing people. They have written books just without end on the subject of how hypnotism cannot turn people into criminals and how people can't be hypnotized against their will and how — did you ever hear of anybody not receiving or obeying an engram without his consent? No. People have enough on the track so they've consented to anything sometime or other. It's just a light engram; it's not so light, really, but it's just an engram.

And they say you can't make a person do criminal acts, you can't make a person that'll hurt himself, you can't make a girl do immoral acts under hypnotic influence. They've tried like mad — something like the field of medicine — they've just worked on a supersalesmanship across the boards in order to keep people sold on the idea. And these things that I've just enumerated that hypnotism won't do, hypnotism will invariably do. It's a big smoke screen.

And for instance, I have conducted many experiments on this line. True enough, a very light, light hypnotism doesn't do too much to an individual, but let's go in for it and really know how to hypnotize. Very few Western hypnotists know what they're doing. Let's get somebody in a real good, solid state. Mmm-they'd do anything.

As far as "Nobody can be hypnotized," that's the same as saying, "Nobody can be knocked out." Anybody can be knocked out. You hit them over the head with a sledgehammer, they'll be knocked out; that's the end of that. You hit them in the face with ether, they'll be knocked out. And you've got, in essence, an hypnotic trance.

If you can keep the body — you see, the drug and the injury, however, impede the body so that the body is giving currents back to the individual and so he doesn't pay as much attention to you as he would if just you were giving him currents.

So, anyway, you can experiment with this. Somebody will have to go over this whole field sometime or other and get a good rundown on it. Somebody that knows how to hypnotize and so on instead of these dilettantes that do stage hypnotism. Actually, any one of you could put on an act as a stage hypnotist that would be tremendously successful, and the people you'd have on the stage would be hypnotized. The people you're hypnotizing in that case are the audience.

You just call somebody up and you say, "Now, sit down. Now, when I snap my fingers you're in a trance." And you go bang! and the guy is in a trance. He had to be suggestible to come up and see you anyhow. And you say, "All right. Now you are an airplane pilot and you're going to fly this chair all around," and the guy'll sit there and with perfect reality for him fly the chair all around the theater. Fantastic. He probably gets out of his body and does it.

Now, what's this add up to?

There is also the mechanism of posthypnotic suggestion. You tell a person under hypnotism — hypnosis — you say to him, "Now, when you awaken …" I don't know why they kept talking about sleep and hypnotism; the two are not related. But they just use it just as a sloppy word, just bad semantics. Because a fellow is completely wide awake, he's just superconcentrated. He's fixed on his attention and you are his determinism.

All right. And you say to him, "Now, when you wake up, when you wake up — and every time I put my hand in my pocket, you will sneeze." And just tell him that. "And now forget that I've told you this. You agree that you've forgotten this." See, that keynote agree, agree, agree. "Agree that you've forgotten this," and so on and you put your hand in your pocket and the guy goes, "Kerchoo!" And he says, "What's wrong with me? Must be a draft in here," so on. You put your hand back in your pocket again, "Kerchoo!" He'll do it.

You finally wear the button out; maybe twenty, thirty times, the button is gone and he all of a sudden spots that you're doing something. There's something wrong in your vicinity, at length, when the button is beginning to wear out, and then he says, finally, "Oh, it's because you're putting your hand in your pocket," and after that he won't do it.

How far can this go? This can go an awful long ways. This can go as far as "Every time I put my hand in my pocket, your nose will run." Now, the fellow doesn't even have a cold, you see, and after he comes out of it again, every time you put your hand in your pocket, his nose will run, but violently! Oh, I'd say you could probably just run, just torrents. You can monitor the whole endocrine system, all the mucous membranes, with hypnotism. Fantastic, isn't it? You can also change body form with hypnotism. Fantastic, isn't it?

But the boys that have been doing hypnotism really don't know what hypnotism can do, and they're not really good hypnotists; they're using Western methods that are rather dull. They don't use hypnoscopes — that is to say, they don't take time at it. It's all got to be fast in the Western world. You got to be able to do it quick. If you can't hypnotize this person in fifteen minutes, they say he's unhypnotizable.

In the East, if they're really working on something like this, it — "Well, let's take off five, six months and hypnotize him." I mean, just about that order of magnitude, and anybody's hypnotizable under those conditions; he just breaks down. There's one case in France of an experiment run 3,000 attempts, and on the 3,001st the fellow went into a trance.

Now, how deep can these trances be made? Mmm. They're as deep as you want to keep on hypnotizing somebody. It's repeated hypnotisms. If you repeat some hypnotism every day for, let's say, a year, you will get a level of hypnotic trance the like of which has never been witnessed in this Western world. And it's — can be put into any state, and it's on the border, so close to the border of death that a doctor can't detect the heartbeat or it's made into complete life. Now, this is what you call suspended animation, that sort of thing.

In other words, these states are tremendous — I mean, their magnitude — magnitude. You could lay somebody out so that for thirty days he would sustain life without food or water. The reason why: he's not using any energy; the body isn't using any energy.

Well, this is a very interesting study, isn't it? Posthypnotic suggestion, hypnotism. Once upon a time, I looked at hypnotism and I said — I was a kid — I said, "You know, hypnotism is somehow linked up with the secret of existence. Somehow linked up. Now what is it?" Because it's a wild variable.

Later on, got into where I could talk some scientific jargon, I used to look at it and I'd say, "You know, it's a funny thing. Some people do, some people don't. Sometimes it behaves one way and another way and it seems to depend a lot upon the operator. And it works well once in a million times and it works badly most of the time. And boy, is this stuff hypnotism variable."

Every time we find a wild variable anywhere in a problem, study it. Study it well, because that variable contains the answer to the problem. A manic-depressive's variable contains the answer to his manic-depressivity. If you know what it is that's flicking him from manic to depressive, if you study his manic-depressive states one way to the other for a little while, you'll find out what's flicking him from one state to the other state.

All right. Let's look over this whole field now of hypnotism and we'll see it as a very calm way of laying in an engram. The engram has command power over the individual; it's rather unseen, it's hidden, same as a posthypnotic suggestion. We'll see, then, that in the states of a few minutes we can do what the material universe has been doing to an individual for 76 trillion years. He has been agreeing! He's been agreeing!

How did the MEST universe get him to agree? You got the fellow to agree a little bit — you say, "Now, you're sitting there, aren't you?"

And witlessly, he'll say, "Yes."

"Now, you're sitting there this way, aren't you?"

"Yes."

You'll just get this current of agreement coming up — current, current, current — and all of a sudden you've got an inflow of energy.

The MEST universe said, "Now. Now, you don't mind if we set up shop a little close to you?"

"Well, no."

And then a little closer and a little closer. Now you agree a little bit more, you agree a little bit more, you agree a little bit more, and how bad off are you? Well, you can see that wall, can't you? It's not there.

Once upon a time, there was on old fairy tale that said the world had fallen under a black enchantment. I studied that black enchantment for a long time. What you're trying to do to preclears is unhypnotize them — that is, to break the chain of agreement with the MEST universe — and you are able then to make them able individuals. And if you don't break that chain of agreement, then you can't break through, actually, their psychosis or neurosis or disabilities with any degree of facility at all.

MEsT universe has said to them, "We handle you." Well, if you can just turn around and say — till the preclear can say, "I can handle it," in terms of energy and engrams, you've done a terrific amount for him.

But if he can say, "Look, I can do as well as this. I can build a universe." Boy, oh boy, oh boy, does that invalidate this other illusion. And you're waking him up, and this subject will make a terrific advance forward the moment we discover exactly how you snap your fingers and wake up a preclear who has been hypnotized for 76 trillion years. And if we could learn exactly how you snapped your fingers to wake him up, we would have a one-shot or a one-snap Clear. And that is the route for the one-shot Clear.