Want to say hello.

Audience: Hello. Hi.

Here you are at Saint Hill and your fate is sealed. There’s no way out of it — you’ve had it. Now, some of you have been plugging along at this for a number of years, and hoping you’ll hit the jackpot and the auditor will do something dever.

Well, frankly, frankly the auditor never could have done anything dever unless he hit on the exact reasons why you didn’t hit the jackpot.

Well, we’ve pretty well rounded those reasons up now, and we’re — as the Hawaiian would say — we’re going for broke all the way along the line.

So you’ll find this course considerably different than any other course you’ve ever attended, and your patience and forbearance is requested because there’s a high probability that in this particular course something desperate will happen to your case.

Now, we have certain regulations with regard to a course, and that is to say that the person flinches when stuck with a pin, they can audit Got the idea? That’s a big pin and a hard punch. We have not so far been known to hold a mirror in front of somebody’s face to see if the breath was registering, but I’m afraid if breath did register, it would be the same thing.

Now, where you find yourself gasping and on the last ropes and so forth during an auditing session, your auditor has only one set of orders and that is to continue the process. That which turned it on will turn it off.

It has been rather amusing teaching all these modern processes — it’s been more than amusing. It has been fantastic that we could. But teaching these modem processes along our own communication lines all over the world and handling them through one way or the other — and you can imagine how much randomity might have occurred. And plenty of randomity did occur getting the procedures, which you’re going to be taught well, disseminated broadly through HGCs and so on.J

We have had a lot of experience as to what will happen by now. But one of the amusing things was to see somebody knock off doing the process that turned on a screaming somatic and for one and one-half weeks run another process to turn the somatic off.

Now, that the pc did get the somatic off eventually must have been lucky. It must have been some coffee shop auditing they had from another auditor or something of the sort, because ordinarily that which turns it on will turn it off. So therefore, we’re not going to shift procedures.

Another thing is this afternoon we’re going to do an assessment I’m going to do the assessment Now, it’s something freakish about this because it was I who did the assessments on the 20th ACC that got all the Clears in Washington, DC. Assessment must have something very vital to do with all this.

It’s very difficult to teach somebody judgment That seems to be the hard thing to teach. Judgment, however, is an adjudication amongst relative importances. And when things have a monotone of importance, judgment is absence.

Now, it’s very easy, I suppose, to Q-and-A with a person you’re assessing because that person has as his primary difficulty A=A=A=A which means no judgment on the exact things that are worrying him. So the common denominator of all case difficulties is no judgment. Judgment is identification.

Chap the other day told me that — stop me if you’ve heard this one — that all women were alike. Obviously, we assume then he would lack judgment on the subject of women. Just that.

Now, Help as a process takes care of valences, and as Help takes care of valences, you get out of the pc’s road the various things which impede judgment because he’s known an awful lot of stupid people, and he’s picked up stupid valences, and he’s picked up identified valences and that sort of thing. He has tremendous identifications on the case, first and foremost of which are valences. Because look what happened at the beginning; he identified himself with another beingness, so that is immediate difficulty.

Now, as you bring a person up the line where he can differentiate very easily amongst cases, amongst people, amongst terminals and so on, you have, of course, made him more independendy himself. And you have increased his judgment.

Now, clearing somebody, of course, increases judgment Therefore, we’re not saying that your judgment is either bad nor good. We’re merely saying by some fluke the Gears that were broadly made on a wholesale assembly line basis, I assessed. So I think it would be the smartest thing to do — would be to teach assessment down toward the end of the course. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

And right now at the beginning of course, we will confuse your wits totally with making you learn exactly, first, this week, Regimen 1; next week, Model Sessions; next week, presessioning and so on until you get all these things down. Then the next week teach you some theory and so on, and then we’ll teach you the following week — fifth week — will be E-Meters and assessments and that sort of thing. And in the last week, why, we’ll just stand around while you do perfectly. Not going to teach you anything in the last week.

There’s seventy-five hours of auditing to be delivered by you in this course and seventy-five hours of auditing to be received by you in this course. Now, we’ve already lost two and a half hours of this seventy-five hours, and somehow or another we’re going to have to find some way to make this up. And I’m not quite sure how we will do it But we have already lost some.

Now, the best thing you can do in auditing a pc is to go by the various exact procedures which are laid down.

When you have learned those well and have seen their effect clearly and cleanly on the pc, and when as a pc you have seen the exact result which occurs subjectively on these exact processes, you are operating on a stability. You are not operating with a question continuously.

Now, unless a process gives one subjective reality, of course, he is left with some sort of a questioa Now, anybody has a right, a perfect right, to question anything. And you should question anything. It’s taken, however, a great many years, actually three decades, to get together this exact information. The information itself should not be accepted by you on faith or trust but should be accepted by you on practice.

But before you can put it into practice as an auditor, you have to do what your Instructors say. Now, very possibly, early in this, it will be very apparent to you that there are many better ways to handle — particularly since many of you are veteran auditors — many, many better ways to handle the exact difficulty the pc is now in.

Look, we’ve had ten years of ways to handle these difficulties. So I’m asking you to just break your training pattern. I’m not trying to invalidate what you can do, but you just break that training pattern right there. Because we’re not going to do anything for the pc except what we’re doing for the pc. You got it? Not going to do a thing for them.

Now, coffee shop auditing — it’s okay, you’re indestructible as a pc — but I don’t think you could do anything in a coffee shop, auditing with the processes we are now using, which would sufficiently upset a case to make the case unauditable in the next session So I don’t care what you hunt and punch at. How do you like that? That wipes out a primary ACC rule which is: No auditing outside of class. And everybody goes around on a big withhold, you know?

I don’t care what you run or what’s run on you. I don’t care who does a Touch Assist or who runs — who all of a sudden finds out that we have probably missed the boat on the assessment, and what is really wrong with the pc is that he was for many decades a horse and was a famous racehorse and so forth, and having graduated there from a trainer.

So — all right So you sit down, and you’re gassing away about this, and say, “Well, just get the idea of how you would help a horse.”

I don’t care how many commands you run it and so forth. It’ll simply show up on the auditor’s meter perhaps as an upset, or it may not. Well, the best reason for that is any Help is Help. But any Help run on anything is Help. It’s just that many more commands of Help. So who cares.

Now, if anybody gets busy self-auditing or so forth, wakes up in the middle of the night and says, “If he just hadn’t started screaming in the next team, then I could have flattened that terminal I was in, and here it is again, and I think I will flatten it now,” only one rule applies to that Go ahead and audit it Who cares? Only one rule applies, is be in class the next morning. I don’t care what you do about that at all.

The amount of judgment necessary to run the processes which we are running right now … Do you realize we’ve never had before a standard procedure, really, of auditing the exact procession of commands through a session from beginning to end? That exact wording — we’ve never before had that.

I didn’t lay one down because I always thought there might be better ones, but enough data finally accumulated to give us what’s very decendy a good rundown on the wording. Now, whether it’s good or bad English or whether it stands your hair on end or not, that’s — may not be what you get away with this week. You might not be able to get that good this week or next week, but certainly by the end of next week, you should have the exact wording of an auditing session down just as though you were learning a script for a play — the exact wording.

I want to call that strongly to your attention because you might miss it — you just might Because we are so accustomed to going along and just taking the parts of the session and wording them somewhat dose to this or using special wording. Well, we’re not doing that now. We’re using exact wording.

The reason for that is it gives the auditor duplication. The auditor is duplicating session after session after session. And you’ll be very interested that sessions run themselves out If the wording is exact and the duplicating of the commands is perfect, then the sessions run themselves out by the process of getting sessions. And if everybody does this, then you can look forward to having the experience sometime or another of running out the sessions of another auditor simply because you’re running the same sessions, don’t you see?

You’d be amazed what a big factor this would play in auditing in general in terms of speeding up auditing.

In other words, the sessions even run themselves out So you don’t find us scanning through sessions today. Along about week three, why, you will probably run out all the sessions of week one. Got the idea?

By week three, you’ll have run out the sessions of week one. And don’t be amazed to suddenly find in week three some incidents in the first week turning up as locks on what you’re running and then running out Got the idea?

Sessions run themselves out these days as long as we follow a perfect pattern. I merely want to give you that understanding of it simply because it is very possible to speak more elegantly, to audit far more artistically, to make one’s wording much closer to Keats or something of the sort.

But that’s not the point The point is, is we’re simply all saying the same thing, and as far as we can tell at this time, everything in the auditing script of a Model Session can be said by anybody without any difficulties, and some adjudication has gone into that So we’ll just leave it at that as a Model Session.

Now, as far as presessioning is concerned, you’ll get down to presessioning, and you’ll find out that here is the area of the entrepreneur. Now, if you’re going to be different and random and that sort of thing, take it out in presessioning. Just pack the pent-up — the pent-up idea of shift, change and alter-isness, pack it all up into the presessioning and leave the Model Session as itself.

I don’t care what you ask somebody in presessioning as long as it gets the case on the road and as long as it takes up the factors of help, control, communication and interest.

Of course, what I gave in the Congress is interest Whether one wishes to live or die is practically the sole determinism of interest A person who wants to die is, of course, not interested in the environment he wants to die out of.

All you’ve got to do is improve his desire to live, and his interest in the environment will increase. It is that elementary. Naturally, this point really can’t be reached at all unless one has graduated the pc up through help, control and communicatioa You can’t reach interest.

But this interest is a very funny thing. It’s a very amusing thing. It could go on in front of all presessioning. You see, it could be the first point of discussion or talk.

We don’t know though how it would go with the public — you going around and using presessioning, you see, for getting somebody interested in auditing. We don’t know how it would go with the public — to ask him, “Do you believe he’s going to live or die?” “Which do you want to do?” It might not go, but on the other hand, it might be twice as interesting to them as Help. “How do you feel about help?” or “Did you ever fail to help anybody?” and so on. That’s beside the point.

The point is that the actual areas of address are help, control, communication and interest — which is survive, succumb as a determined direction of the case, which is also goals, don’t you see, so on.

So you can take that up first, you can take that up last or you can take it up in both places. Now, if you have a case that is floundering all over the place and is very sick and queasy and ARC breaky and that sort of thing, take it up first and take it up fourth. Got the idea?

See, put it in ahead of help and get something done on it, and then go over help, control, communication and then go on over it again.

Now, the funny part of it is, is you could audit a case on a son of a slow way. One of these cases that couldn’t really run a process — if you went help (some type of discussion or very elementary process), control (discussion or process), communication (discussion or process), interest (discussion or process of live or die), see, and then not going into session but went back to help, see, process or communication and so forth — and just keep flattening those four points. Just keep going over and over and over and over and over. You could probably get a raving maniac right straight out of the favorite padded cell that the psychiatrists are keeping him in, and you’d probably get him out and probably, by just going over those four points over and over and over.

Anytime he stopped flying around the room long enough to talk to, why, get a point over. You could probably eventually drill through and get somewhere. There’s a possibility of that There’s been no experimental address to it, but I know enough about psychos to know that this is also true.

Now, where a case is running well, he will get the most benefit — will get the greatest benefit, of course, from the Model Session. The greatest benefit will be achieved in Model Session today because of the power of Help Processes.

Now remember, you’re clearing help, control, communication and interest on a valence. It’s what this valence believes about help, control, communication and interest, see? It’s Uncle Charlie’s ideas of the subject that you’re taking up.

Now look, if anybody is in a valence, their ideas of these four points will be colored by the valence. You follow me? So you’re really taking up … Well, let’s say pc is in Mother’s valence. All right No matter if only slightly, see — pc is in Mother’s valence. Well, he’s not even in his this-life-identity valence, see, but in Mother’s valence once removed.

And you’ll find pcs that are not only not in this life’s — this gets very rough — this life’s identity, you see, but in Mother’s valence who is being in Father’s valence.

But in view of the fact that Father was always called a dog, we have the pc in a synthetic valence called a dog. The valence doesn’t even exist It’s just a semantic label that he’s living up to. Now, this gets very fascinating when you start looking this one over.

Well now, in the first place, don’t think that the four steps of presessioning are without power. They are. They’re very powerful. They are, however, relatively small in power against running Help Processes, the primary and foremost function of which is shifting of valences. Help shifts valences. So don’t be surprised every time you run a session, we give the presessioning a once-over-lightly. We just give these things a dust-off. These first four, we dust them off, we say brrrrrrrppp. Don’t be surprised if the next morning, giving the same pc apparently the session, we run these off bmrrrrppp and get four different answers because possibly you shifted off a few hundred valences on the day before.

Now, valences are not a problem in elementary, single identities. You think it’s funny to move on through four valences, the last one of which is a synthetic valence because somebody was known as a dog.

Well, how many lives do you think somebody may have lived in 152 trillion years? How many lives do you think that person’s lived? Well, those are the primary valences of the case. Those are the primary valences. They’re immediate. And every single one of them sometime during some lifetime undoubtedly became colored by or shifted into three or four more. Those are the secondary valences.

So you have a minimum of one for each lifetime for a hundred — at least 152 trillion years plus all the secondary valences which would amount to probably a minimum of three or four. Look it over.

Now, what sort of a bulldozer do you think was necessary technically in order to tackle that quantitative horror? Well, we did it. See? I mean it actually occurred. I actually did get down and did find ways and means of pushing out of the road valences and getting the person straightened out.

It would be very interesting to you that a person cannot even feel pain without being in two valences. Do you realize that a pc has to be in a minimum of two valences before he can experience pain? Minimum of two. It’s Bill punishing Pete.

It has to be Bill punishing Pete, and Bill influenced by the fact that he believes Pete feels pain. The pain then has to be felt back by Bill in order for the thetan to reexperience it But the thetan can’t be himself and experience that pain. Now, there’s what valences are all about.

So if a person had lived not 152 trillion, but had lived fifteen years and he could feel pain, then the minimum number he would be in would still be two valences. So what’s the use of trying to shoot very thoroughly or hard for one? You can get a package — you can take a package of valences off a case.

And valences are quite important The assessment of a case is quite important It’s quite a touchy matter. There are various things which you mustn’t do in terms of valences as adjectivial terminals. An aggressive dog. This is not an assessment; this is a catastrophe. And so it will turn out in auditing.

In the first place, it’s a valence of an overt thing. It’s a valence selected with the pc at effect Therefore, it couldn’t be a very harmful valence because the ones the pc is having trouble with are those which are closely associated to cause, not effect But you can’t have an aggressive dog and find the pc anyplace but on the receiving end of the line if he keeps saying, “How I could help an aggressive dog.” You were bodily moving him out of an aggressive dog, but the funny part of it is the only place he has to move to is a bitten cat.

So if you want a bitten cat for a pc, choose one of these superoutflow terminals. A much better terminal would be something very innocent like a friend. That would be better — still not good — and not good enough for us, but it is still better.

But of course “a friend” would boil down to something that was more or less alive and had form and body, so it would boil down to reductio ad absurdum. It’d be just a form of some kind or another, and all of these adjectivial valences would boil down to some such thing as a form.

Well, it’s what kind of a form is real to the pc that we want See, well, I say the word form, and I saw in several of your faces that form wasn’t very real — didn’t seem too real — just a form. Well, that’s the trouble with the pc.

When you’re broad awake and find it unreal, believe me, what are you going to find it like when you’re eight feet under practically through an auditing session’s anaten. It’s just not going to be there, that’s all. Uhhh.

Now therefore, the assessment has to be something that will run but which is real to the pc.

Now, the same terminal has to be run for weeks as far as you’re concerned or an HGC is concerned. Let’s not go shifting off these terminals. When we’ve got them, we’ve got them. And that’s it.

So it’s a rather sharp proposition selecting one of them. You can see clearly that if the same terminal is employed 100 percent intensive after intensive after intensive — the same terminal, we could show you the graphs — there’s enormous increases compared to the same length of time audited on three or four terminals.

In other words, we started out and we audited “a wife” for three weeks, but another pc audited on “a wife,” “a husband,” and “a cow.” That is perfectly good assessments, you see, for three weeks. Nowhere like the same game. Do you follow that? It’s a mechanical fact that’s been forced upon us, and that is the fact that the more we stick with a valence — the more we run the valence we’ve chosen, the less we shift off the valences we run — the better off we are in the long run for case gain. Therefore, it’s of great interest to pick the right valence. Don’t go shifting around.

You could probably run a valence for an hour and a half or two hours and a half before you found out you had laid a colossal egg, you know, and still shift off of it without doing anything much to the case. You could still do this. Because any Help is Help. Any Help run is Help run. It’s just when you’ve got the same valence that you’re heading at, all the way through, well, you really separate one and you give the pc a win, and he starts boosting out of more because he won on one. Got the idea? Some such mechanical thing.

Confidence is what we’re trying to regain, after all, in auditing. And there are probably direct questions that could be asked.

For instance, there’s a cute trick which would come under the head of ARC — “Do you have any ARC breaks with me?” you see, as an auditor and so forth.

Well, if you ran into a ‘Tes, I’ve got ARC breaks with you, and I haven’t had anything but ARC breaks with you, and you are — this whole session has been one long ARC break, and I think when you were bom you were an ARC break.” It gets pretty grim. You can still patch that sort of thing up. It would have been fairly far gone. You won’t use it in this unit, but you just have to be pretty far gone. There’s another way of handling a cumulative mass of ARC breaks and patching them up rather rapidly.

A man is auditing a girl, so if he feels that she is just mad at men rather than mad at him, then the least terminal that she could take: “Is there anything that can be trusted about men?” This is just an ARC break proposition It builds trust and confidence. It’s very, very good. It’s a very good way to patch up some sort of a communication line.

What happens? In an ARC break, the pc no longer trusts the auditor, and that’s a technical fact and one which you should take due note of because it explains it better than saying ARC break.

ARC break, of course, is the actual, theoretical description of exactly what happens, and that is what happens.

A person gets a sudden downshift of A and R and C. But the modus operandi by which this occurs is a drop of confidence in the auditor. Now therefore, a flubbed command drops confidence in the auditor. Missing the boat on a Model Session drops confidence in the auditor.

The auditor failing to protect the pc in the auditing environment is again a loss of confidence in the auditor. The auditor failing to understand what the pc is trying to communicate, of course, results in a loss of confidence in the auditor. You got the idea?

So a rapid way to patch these things up, you see, is simply to reestablish the confidence in the auditor. Now, the long way of going about this would just be to sort out all auditors everyplace.

The way you will go about it is, “What have I done to you?” and “What have you done to me?”

Now, why are we using that one instead of the proper one? Well, you’re entided to know this. The proper one, of course, is “What have you done to me?” “What have you withheld from me?” That’s the proper one and is therapeutic and on which you do make some case gain. You run an ARC break and make a case gain.

But it’s too usual in a course like this for some pc acting in an ARC breaky fashion to take a new ARC break on being asked the double side on the single side with himself at cause. ‘What have you done to me?” “What have you withheld from me?”

He says, “You just dropped the ashtray and startled me half out of my wits.”

And the auditor says, “Okay. Is that an ARC break?”

Well, he might to be shot for saying that, see. It’s obvious. He should be able to read it off the pc that it’s an ARC break. And he says, “Well,” and his challenging question is a challenging question, which is, ‘Well, what have you done to me?” Guy practically goes up in smoke at that point.

Now, it’s actually in basic practice easier and quicker to use, “What have you done to me?” “What have you withheld from me?”

Half of the questions are wasted. Half the questions are wasted, see? “What have I done to you?” Well, that’s a wasted question. The facts of the case are that after four or five or six answers, it’s quite common for the pc to say, “It’s nothing. You haven’t done a thing to me. But I, on the other hand, have done this to you.”

And he’s liable to finish it off answering, “What have I done to you?” you see, as “Nothing,” and “What have you done to me?” answering it as, Well, I didn’t really answer the auditing command four commands ago,” or something of this sort Don’t you see?

One side of it nulls out because it’s nonfactual. And it doesn’t do a thing for the case, so get off of it in a hurry. It just doesn’t do a thing for the case. That’s it.

In actual experiment, it’s a hang-up. Now — so don’t go specializing in lots of ARC breaks because it’s just from nowhere. And don’t try to run them lengthily and feel you’re getting anyplace because with this particular process, it’s simply courtesy.

Very often in a course like this, the auditor has just done something. Pc wants to mention it and he at least gets a chance to snarl about it if you run, “What have I done to you?” “What have you done to me?”

But of course if he’s in a snarly condition, he’s got lots of overts, too. So this is the way it hangs up.

Now, the other one is he’s going to ask the question, “Why are we running, “What have you helped?’ and ‘What’s helped you?’ Such a two-sided proposition.” It doesn’t matter what our wording is. “Think of something helping you,” and “Think of you helping something,” whatever it is.

Well, if it’s not therapeutic, why are we running both sides of it?

Well, Help is a peculiar thing, but the pc is always at cause. There’s practically — well, there might be some other process. I haven’t bothered to look them up or think them out There might be some more, but it’s the only one I know of at the moment, which it doesn’t matter which side of the bracket you run; the pc is always sufficiently a party to it to put him at cause.

So you can run, “Think of doing something to a horse,” “Think of a horse doing something to you,” and you get no action. You get the idea? But, “Think of you helping a horse” and “Think of a horse helping you,” you get action. Why? Because he’s so flagrantly a party to help.

But he’s not flagrantly a party to simple doingness. Doingness could be something else, you see? He could have shot a horse by simply dropping a gun. He just dropped a gun on the path, and it went off and nicked the horse down in the — down in the pasture. Well, he’s done something to a horse, hasn’t he?

Well now, the horse suddenly twitches his tail or kicks or something, as the fellow is passing the stall and kicks the person. Well, horse has done something to the person, hasn’t he? Well, you could run these both sides, just ad nauseum and get exactly nowhere. You can park the graph and do everything else. But Help has something to do with recognition and intention.

If you’re going to help a horse, why, you must have an intention to help a horse, and you have to at least be there for the horse to help you, and there has to be some consideration either on your part or the horse’s part. And that — you’ll find this is very amusing, and it becomes more and more apparent as you run it And somewhere up the line it goes out, of course, and starts going flat and null and the rest of it but until this does, why, you might as well run, “How have you helped a horse?” “How has a horse helped you?” You might as well run that as, “What help have you given a horse?” ‘What help have you withheld from a horse?” They’ll both produce almost identical auditing results.

In other words, Help OW (or Help OvertWithhold) and Two-way Help, as far as results are concerned, are apparendy indistinguishable.

We found this out the hard way. We were going through things, and couldn’t tell the difference between the things — couldn’t tell the difference between graphs — one graph run on Two-way Help and another graph run on Help O/W. Well, it doesn’t respond that way on overts.

See, you can certainly tell the difference between Help or between overts — just O/W and two-way action. That registers differendy on a graph, but Help doesn’t.

Help’s peculiar stuff — very, very peculiar. You know, it’s quite old, Help is. In Dianetics and Scientology, you’ll find it written up in Book One. You think you’re doing something new right here, it’s just — I’ve just cracked the way through. You just look it up, and see if you don’t find it It’s under the heading of survival.

Now, to shift a person for Alternate Confront — you already know the commands for Alternate Confront Now, you can run Alternate Confront oddly enough in another way, just to give you new gen on this. You can run Alternate Confront without alternating it.

You can actually get away with running, “What would you rather not confront?” “Thank you.” “What would you rather not confront?” “Thank you.” It’ll run. It’ll run.

But “Look around here and find something you could go out of communication with.” That doesn’t run. That doesn’t run.

But confront does. Negative Confront does run as a consecutive command. Positive Confront runs. You can say to somebody consistently and continually nothing but, “What can you confront?” “What can you confront?” “What can you confront?” See? “Thank you.” “What can you confront?” “Thank you.” And he’ll still get places.

Now, these are Havingness Processes, but they don’t contain the full understanding of havingness. These are Havingness Processes. That’s a Havingness Process. It leads up to havingness. And it’s vital that it be run and run well because probably the only reason any predear in the world ever got audited is there’s something he’d rather not confront Got the idea? But he doesn’t know what it is.

Now it’s very lengthy to audit a case all the way up the line — if it could be done — on the subject of confront because you’re not handling valences. And what Grandma could confront and could not confront is what you’re generally getting on the case. You got it?

So right now the only thing we use it for is to straighten up the valence and reorient the case. A wonderful process. You get down to the end of the Help run for the day, and the dock goes, and you — you feel like you blaaaah, and there’s little bits and pieces and partides that are going all over the place, and so forth, and you run Alternate Confront, and it all comes out very smooth. And you feel fine and sane once more until somebody hits that confounded Help button again.

So it’s a marvelous stabilizer, and it stabilizes the case at various stages as you come up the line. It doesn’t let the case keep wandering off into instabilities.

Now, havingness is its own bag of tricks and has to do with ownership, use, possession of, importance of you because you can have it. The importance of you is then increased. All these kinds of things, all these considerations are wrapped up under this havingness. It’s a word that defies a complete analysis. It’s a — plenty.

But don’t say that havingness is confront, and confront is havingness. Confront increases havingness, but it is not havingness. And havingness does not stand as a substitute for confront These are different things.

So, these are the three processes you’re going to become most intimate with, but there’s another process which you’re going to use which is brand-new, and I don’t think there’s even a bulletin on it at this time, and that is: How are you going to handle this livingness thing?

Now, I’m not going to have you sitting around here wasting time, saying to one another, “Well, do you want to live or die today?” See? I think this is just silly. Now, a person will always say he wants to die.

We’re going to use a horrible, mean, tough, wicked process the wording of which is key wording and has to do with the formation of space, the closure of problems on the person and every other thing that you can think of — a very complicated package known as problems.

A tremendous amount to know about problems. Problems are postulate-counter-postulate. Problems make space, solutions to problems lose space. All kinds of weird things to know about problems. You run nothing but solutions, the fellow says … Here’s the wrong thing to do:

You say to this fellow, you say, “Well, what problem have you got today?”

And the fellow says, “Oh, I got a terrible problem today. I’ve got a problem, a problem about — my grandmother threw me out of the house this morning and threw rolling pins after me, and so forth A terrible problem. If I go home tonight, why, she’s going to do the same thing.”

You say, “Good. Give me a solution to that problem.”

Now if a rolling pin did hit him in the process, I mean, in the action that he went through, I can assure you that getting repetitive solutions to the problem of Grandma will cause rolling pins to hit him and the problem to hit him and the masses represented by the problems to hit him and everything else, and it’ll just bundle him up in a grruhhh, in a ball; it’ll stick him on the trade.

No, there’s nothing really wrong with the solution except that it’s single, and it doesn’t make space.

Space is the viewpoint of dimension, and there have to be two points to view from a third point before you get space. And then you get space. As elementary as it is, it’s two-dimensional space, but it’s space. Up to that time, you don’t get any space. So these things make dosures on the person. Solutions make dosures. And whenever he dedded to die, he decided to have everything collapse on him anyhow. And he decided to have it all fold up and cease and desist, and he decided to have it stick in time because he decided to have it end at that moment of time. So therefore, there’s no future from the place going to be manufactured, so of course there’s no time track from that spot till now. Sounds interesting, doesn’t it? Well, it is interesting, believe me.

We’re going to run the roughest and worst process which gives us the best and most spectacular results, which is this business about life and death and is the interest button of presessioning. And you’re going to do some running of this, and I want you to handle it in no other way, and I don’t care how long you handle it in a session, briefly. I don’t care whether you handle it — three commands or sixty commands or twenty commands — as long as you consistendy, continually handle it from now till the end of the course.

Keep looking at it Keep looking at it and keep shifting it Got the idea?

Every time you presession a guy, do something with this button. I don’t care whether you do it twice or once. It all depends on how important you think this button is.

But, we’re going to run, “What problem would death be a solution to?” It’s not grammatical; it’s merely grim. “What problem would death be a solution to?” It is even impersonalized, see?

Don’t be surprised — don’t be surprised if the pc gets into a killing rage or something of the sort.

Now, if you want to shorten this down, you have an alternate command: “Think of a problem death would be a solution to.” It’s all right to use that one. It’s best to use that one where a pc is prone to discuss it with you because it’s the number of auditing commands you get in per unit of time — not the pleasant expression on your face or the social grace of the session — that makes Clears. It’s the number of commands per unit of time. And if you find there’s any command advantage, answer, an advantage in saying, “Think,” use it — not for any other reason. “Think of a problem death would be a solution to.”

Don’t be amazed if people tell you they wanted to kill a lot of people because I don’t think anybody on this planet right now is calling himself a human being, and so forth, hasn’t had a few killing rages. What they classify as tame these days is somebody who is afraid to kill people. And we’re going to cross this bridge — that’s for sure.

Now, crossing this bridge, up into killing people by choice, not by compulsion, is a necessary step before we can get somebody up to a point where he doesn’t have to kill anybody including himself — just doesn’t see any point in killing people, including himself. Because you ask them to do things, and they will. You get the idea? That’s where we want people to be.

Now you’ve got that one? Now, I don’t care what you use for the Help button, really. I don’t want you to go overboard on presessioning the Help button because you’re running the Help button. Just ask about how’s help today, something like that.

Now, as far as control is concerned, control is something you really take up well, after help is totally flat And it’s the next step from MEST Clear to Theta Clear — is all wrapped up in the zones and areas of control. It’s totally control. Also, it’s a whole process of agreement Control is agreement and everything else, I mean, it’s all a very important zone and strata, but it has something to do . .. Now you’re moving up toward Theta Clear. Of course, you’re going in the direction of Operating Thetan.

Now, you haven’t a person any longer who’s merely well-off in life, but a person who is living in life, hard and fast, don’t you see? And if he hasn’t got control clear — if a MEST Clear hasn’t got control totally wrapped up somewhere up the line — why, he’s going to kind of moan and mope to himself, you see? You don’t think this is a rough deal.

So that would be the whole next ladder of processes wrapped up with control. And don’t think you’re going to do anything with them in this — in getting a person Clear. You’re not All you want is the person to answer the auditing question and to answer the auditing question which you ask and to sit in the chair while it’s being answered and not to do something else. Got the idea? That’s what you want from control in presessioning.

So — oh, it’s something overt like, “How do you feel about my controlling you today?” is liable to produce a few flinches on the part of the pc. But get that point straight That’s what you want. You merely want him to be controlled to the point where he’ll answer your auditing questions and carry through with the session. That’s where you want it So that’s the point you’re trying to establish when you bring up this Control button.

Now, as far as communication is concerned, a pc won’t communicate with you, of course, if they have terrible overts that they can’t tell you about or overts against you, the auditor. So you take up communication just to the degree of finding out what kind of overts the person has on you. That’s as far as you go.

What isn’t this person telling you about? Of course, it’s an overt to withhold something from an auditor. You’re only interested in those withholds which will hold up a free communication of the case. That’s all you’re interested in. You’re not interested in any other blessed thing on the subject of communication.

That’s presession communication, definition and width of. Nothing else.

You say, “Well, how do you feel about talking to me today?” you know, and the needle goes bang! And you’re only interested in one thing. “Well, what didn’t you tell me yesterday?” ‘What haven’t you told me this morning?” “What are you running into that you keep knocking your head into?”Then the fellow comes up and tells you that he had a rough time when he was a little boy because women kept saying no, but there were other little boys or something like this, you know? Something real horrible.

A person feels worse, of course, about his own overts, which is something everybody ] manages to overlook. They feel much worse about the overts they have committed, you see, than they do about those they have not committed. So you get the odd phenomenon of the fellow who is nursing this fantastic and horrible overt to his bosom, thinking the whole world will kill him if it ever comes known And of course the auditor, or the whole world for that matter, would simply say, “Hey, well, what do you know. Ha! So well, that’s it”

And he says, “Well, aren’t you going to kill me? Bat me?”

Well, it’s not important The only person it was important to was the fellow who did it It’s not important to anybody else. People going around nursing their sins, it makes an interesting show because the only person who sins is the person who sinned, you see, and the only person to whom it is a sin, in the final analysis, is the person who committed it And factually, Sunday tabloid papers aside, the only real interest in it is held by the person who did it. If you merely want to be interesting in life, don’t bother to sin. Who 11 listen? But there s a great deal of, I m not so sure,” and sitting up and burning the midnight oil, sitting on the edge of the bed, chin in the hands, you know, saying, “Welk should I, shouldn’t I tell the auditor? I don’t know. I shouldn’t tell the auditor’ There’s no point in telling the auditor. I mean, I can get away with this sort of thing. On the other hand, if I don’t tell the auditor,” and so on and so on. ‘Well, I’ll just let it go by. Probably isn’t important anyhow. I’ll just go over here and go to sleep. Well, I…”

Hour later, “Well, I don’t seem to be able to sleep. I wonder if I should tell the auditor,” and so forth.

Of course, the answer is tell the auditor and to hell with it But that’s the answer. But you have to make up your mind about that or the auditor can make up his mind about that, don’t you see? That’s from a subjective point of view. Now, from an objective and auditing point of view, you want to watch that needle at that moment When you’re asking that communication question, all you want to know is, does the fellow feel free to talk? Does the girl feel free to talk to the auditor? That’s the only thing. That’s all we want That’s all. No more. And you get a needlc — phuuuuw.

“Oh,” you say, “well, we’ve had it. Let’s find out what it is.”

It’s a pretty doggone rough case, believe me, that doesn’t deliver it up right away. And so it would be a kind of a rough one if you had to do something like this: “Think of something you could tell me.” “Think of something you could withhold from me.”

If you had to run that process, this would be pretty rough. I don’t expea that you will have to run the process, but if so, that’s the one you’ll run — chipping in, “Now, would you like — is there anything you’d like to tell me now?” “Think of something you could tell me.” “Think of something you could withhold from me.” Run that a few times, and then say, “Now, is there anything you’d like to tell me now?”

And the person has had the edge taken off of this, and all of a sudden will say, “Yeah. Well, as a matter of faa — as a matter of faa, you might as well know — they’ve been looking for me for about 10,000 years, ever since …” I’ve actually run into one of those in present time. Funny part of it is the guy hadn’t even committed the murder. Well, anyhow. ..It’ll normally be a present time thing that somebody will be rather upset about or something like that and feel it would ruin his repute, and so forth, if he knew about it.

Now, that takes care of those presessioning processes. Now, there’s no other presessioning processes outside the ones I’ve told you about, and the important ones, of course, are not help and control in presessioning because you’re running help, and you’re exercising control all the time. So the important one is interest — whether or not he’s going to live or die. That one I want you to just lambaste like mad. And then just keep your weather eye peeled for this falling needle, “How do you feel about talking to me?” or any such presessioning remark, and you get a needle fall.

Well, that means you’re just about to blow a whole session because if the pc has got a big withhold … Sometimes, by the way, they just blow into view. The fellow only did it two years ago, but he’s forgotten all about it, and he’s being audited, and he was all right during two sessions, and then all of a sudden he remembers this thing. “Hello! I thought it was all right at the time, but — but what will the auditor think? You know, I’d completely forgotten about that It didn’t seem anything very bad at the time. Tisn’t important to me — but you know?”

What has happened is that the case has increased just enough in responsibility to be able to take some responsibility for this withhold. And now the withhold is going to sit there and hold up the whole progress of the case if it makes the needle fall on presessioning. Got it?

So you say, “How do you feel about talking to me today?” and so forth, and you get a dank. Then you explore that clank any way you want to — just shake the clank out of it.

That’s all. We don’t even care if he never tells you. Just shake the clank out of it. Get it so it doesn’t fall. Only we haven’t found any pcs who were able to do that yet Anyhow…

Now that gives you the size, shape, general description of the processes, targets, goals, purposes, and so forth, that we’re using in this course. But you have a lot of study material in the form of bulletins. I want you to bum the midnight oil on it.

Don’t think you’re going to get any new, more, marvelous, strange things that are suddenly going to be dumped on your head in the middle of the course. 1116/re not They’re not for this reason: HGCs throughout the world, using these processes at this time, have been turning in fantastically good results, and we are the last people in the world to argue with hundreds and hundreds of case results, so you’re not going to argue with those this time.

ACCs are normally experimental-type courses. This isn’t an experimental-type course. This is the program for the UK and some other sections of the world. This is we’re simply going to make some Clears, and you — in the same moment, teach you exactly how to make Clears. You can make anything else you want to with auditing. That’s beside the point But this exact groove — making a Clear — is an exact procedure. It is a fact right now. It can be done easily, and you might as well do it.

Now we know. We’re operating from a very large certainty. Now, as far as thinking up things, getting ideas, getting cognitions, wanting to express these things — by all means, do so. The easiest way to give me an idea is put it on the despatch lines. You right here are on the HCO Saint Hill despatch lines. You drop anything into the clerk’s hands, and you will get a — it’ll go through. I’ll get it. Don’t worry about thatA person, when he came over from the States — I don’t know who he’d been listening to, but there — somebody was worrying about whether or not I wore all of my hats. Now, one of the things that is wrong with this is, I don’t think anybody could. I know it’s very, very hard to do.

And there’s so many of these hats, don’t you see? And he came over here, and Peter let him prowl through the despatch sections, and so forth, and look up and read various despatches and answers and so on. And it was like a Picasso show another artist — an artist and I went to once. And the white tie and tails people were all going around, and one of them finally went down a whole line of pictures, looked at the comer of each one and said, “Well, he signed every one.” He had a great knowledge of art, this fellow did.

Anyway, similarly — similarly, he went through the files and looked at the sheets and despatches, and so forth, and he found my answers on them. And he definitely cleared up for himself and probably cleared up for his whole section of the world the idea that if you write me, why, as he put it, as I never would, quote “Some derk answers you,” unquote. This is not true, but because — to put something in a transmittable form — which I think is an awful downgrade on HCO WW staff to call him some derk — these people also write letters and also have ideas. You get the idea? And you’re liable to hear from them — very definitely. And some people wish they hadn’t, here and there, too.

I noticed one going out the other day. I never stopped it or did anything like that I noticed — I don’t think I could have. It was — already been mimeographed and sent And somebody said — sent a line through and asked me, “Is it all right if we send this out?”