Well, I'm glad to see that you're all in such fine fettle today. I understand a few of you, as auditors, having a little trouble running Help. If you have too much trouble, I'll cry because there's nothing simpler, but I'm going to give you a rundown right now on the key processes of clearing. The key processes of clearing.

This is what, by the way? This is February something or other . . .

Audience: Eleventh.

Eleventh. Good. AD 8.

It might have been thought that a great many processes were necessary to clear somebody because there are so many angles and complexities to the mind. And it's very amusing. There have been tremendous efforts made in the last seventy-six trillion years, or seventy-three trillion years — tremendous efforts made to keep people from finding out what they were all about. And these, themselves, are booby traps.

Amongst them was "it would take an enormously long time to do anything." Hence you get Tibetan Lamanism — Lamaism — twenty, thirty, forty years. Interesting, isn't it? Because by the time the fellow got thoughtful enough to hear about it, why, he might be thirty or forty, and so that made it impossible, didn't it?

So they could always say, "Well, you didn't come to us soon enough." That, by the way, is the standard cliche of psychoanalysis and psychiatry. They say this about practically every case. As a matter of fact, I never heard them say anything else.

A guy comes to them, treated for two or three months, goes out, takes arsenic and kicks the bucket, blows out his brains, hangs himself, drops in front of a truck. A tremendous number of suicides follow the first three months of a psychoanalysis, for instance.

And you ask this boy what happened here, and he says, "Well, he didn't come to me soon enough." Well, it's an old gag. I suppose witch doctors back in savage tribes have said, "Well, the patient didn't come to us soon enough."

But Lamaism had the perfect answer. They had such a long look that nobody ever lived long enough to find it out — whether or not it worked. Do you get the idea? And I think, by this mechanism alone, they kept themselves afloat for twenty-five hundred years. It's an interesting mechanism, isn't it?

Somebody says there's a goal there, but you can't persevere long enough to attain it. Well, specious and spurious as this is, it did keep somebody afloat but it's not very honest. Because Lamaism would never have attained it. Never. They were going toward an inverted eight — an inverted eighth dynamic — and brother, that was something.

"Be one with all the cockroaches; be one with everything." It's all very well if you, on your determinism, could get the idea of being anything you saw. You'd be in pretty good shape. But if on everything's determinism you had to be it, that would be pretty — you'd be in pretty terrible shape. As a matter of fact about as terrible a condition as anyone could possibly envision. Stark, staring mad would be like a light headache compared to the condition you'd get into if you had the other one.

Now, these are booby traps of one kind or another. And another one is, "You mustn't have anything to do with the mind because something terrible will happen to you." Now, I don't think there's a person here who was not subjected to that, one way or the other, along through the years. "This is something you mustn't tamper with."

Kill the man who tells you so. Don't bother, don't wait, because he's beyond help. That's for true. He has a pitch and he knows it. Because it tells you you mustn't touch or look at your own mind, and it is another invitation to go into an inverted eight.

The mind is too complicated, perhaps, for Wundt, Pavlov, psychologists, psychiatrists and so forth, but in actuality it was too simple for them. They were of a complex stupidity that could never grasp a simplicity.

The main difficulty that may occur, as the years go on, is that somebody summarizes the number of points that have to be covered in a mind and then says, "Clearing is complicated to get a complete and thorough Clear because the mind is too complicated to be reached by any simple series of processes."

You hear me now?

You watch this carefully, because you're drifting right straight back to "the mind is too complicated," and you're drifting right straight back to "it takes too long to achieve." Got that?

And I'll tell you here and now that there are basically just two processes involved in clearing, and all the rest of it is window dressing and rococo to permit it to be done. And don't you ever think anything else until you've got enough experience to see it with a clear blue gaze. You hear me?

There are just two processes. One permits the person a sufficient stability to stay in-session, permits him a sufficient communication along the various dynamics to grasp the substance of the situation and knocks out his destructive machinery. That process is Help.

Took me quite a little while to find out how you run Help. I had to watch you people, by the way. Now I'll watch you some more and find out how to do it wrong. (laughter) That's a dirty crack because all of you, nearly all of you are doing wonderfully well. But I can be allowed a few dirty cracks, I hope.

Help is survival. We are evidently straight back to the old survive-succumb. I had a look at this myself yesterday. And I was quite interested to see that destroy was an alter-isness but help wasn't. Now, help could be an alter-isness low on its own scale, but fairly high on the scale is not an alter-isness. It is simply the create-create-create section of the cycle of action. This stuff wouldn't even stay there unless you helped it stay there.

So in order to have, you have to help, regardless of interpersonal relations. This is then true on every dynamic.

On every dynamic, if you want to have a dynamic there, you've got to help, and you've got to be able to help. And because the second you stop helping it disappears, then the entrance upon the idea of destroy brings about a persistence of rubble. It's pretty wild when you look at this.

An individual who will not help and who is dealing totally with destroy will, after a while, not be able to see. One, he would stop seeing when he stopped helping because the create-create-create part of the cycle of action, as given in the Fundamentals of Thought, would no longer be carrying him along. But in view of the fact that he's alter-ised — alter-ised with destroy (very destructive alterations) — he would see only debris.

Now, you've run into a debris case: skyrockets and pinwheels or the fellow has a vast view of a bunch of purple, he doesn't seem to be able to see much else. There's no condemnation of him. He's just fallen for the Q and A.

Somebody said, "I will destroy you," and he was a fool — he reactively said to them, "Well, I'll destroy you, then." You trace this back, you'll find out he or she has been a member of armies or cat clubs, and they've gotten into this Q and A with the games condition of destroy. You know the proper answer for "I will destroy you"? It's "I'll help you." The other person will then either collapse or get in line.

You saw this in Christianity: "Turn the other cheek." Maybe that helped somebody, I don't know. Never helps me when I'm booting somebody around and he turns the other cheek. It usually makes me mad.

But, "Love thy neighbor." Do unto thy neighbor as you would be done in. (New England interpretation.)

All of these phrasings were gropings toward something — they were gropings toward something. In Buddhism you'll find them, gropings toward this and that. You'll find all manner of facets of this button, because it's quite a button.

But they could have said it much better had they said "What we would say — is, 'Help one another.'" Now, you would have gotten a show on the road with that. See, "Help one another."

As soon as a man tries to destroy, he alter-ises and he inherits the debris.

There was an amusing incident — it wasn't amusing to Hannibal or the Romans, but it was amusing to me when I read it. The great Hannibal decided to get even with Rome after he had invaded the Italian peninsula.

And there was a huge valley which produced tremendous quantities of food, practically the mainstay of Rome itself. And Hannibal went in there, and just to get even with Rome, he laid the whole thing waste. He destroyed the lot.

And then he found out that Fabius, the Roman general, was sitting on all the passes. And here's Hannibal with an army of about twenty-seven thousand men in a valley that a bird couldn't have lived in, and they started to run mighty short of chow.

He was almost defeated by his own destruction. That was the battle where he tied torches to the horns of the cattle and drove them up over another pass so as to draw Fabius aside and himself escape. But he managed to escape it. But it took Hannibal to: one, be stupid enough to destroy in order to get the Roman allies to join him (they never did permanently, you know) and two, destroy enough so that he didn't have anything to eat. And of course, typical to this concatenation, he had to come up with a brilliant stroke of military genius and get a pass open slightly so he could get his troops through quick and get out of there. This is a wonderful example — the effects of that campaign stayed with him quite a while, too. He inherited a lot of debris.

We get some politician. He speaks of flag, country, mother, other sacred symbols, and he comes down here to Washington, never goes near the Senate chamber except check in once in a while — pork barrel, pork barrel, pork barrel.

In every piece of news and emergency, he sees an opportunity to get some more pork barrel. He sees, "Ah, everybody is interested in missiles and rockets now. Now, I — let's see, I could get a big bill out. And I know Joe. And we could get a — then get — use this emergency, and Joe would get a certain amount of money, and then we get this over here and . . . Hey, you know, that's a pretty nice stunt. Maybe I'll get myself twenty-five thousand shares of General Electric." He does.

He never does anything about the emergency. He uses the emergency in order to accumulate what he considers wealth.

Well, the joke is on him. He keeps saying, "Well, you only live but once" — the sucker. And after he's utilized every emergency to pad his own pockets, after he's used everything that should be investigated simply to get his head in the papers when it should be on somebody's pike, after he's gone through these shenanigans, he leaves just a little more debris — just a little more.

Well, he kicks the bucket and he lives again, and he kicks the bucket and he lives again, and one fine day he's trying to get a job as a street sweeper, only the country has been drained dry and gutted. And he stands there starving to death — lives some miserable existence. He says, "I wonder what could have happened to this country?"

If there is an interested God in the affairs of this particular country, I trust he has a sense of humor. It's quite wonderful — it's quite wonderful that these men who do these things actually inherit them again and again and again. Maybe if they had a truer perspective, maybe it would rather restrain them from their rapacity. But I'm afraid each one would have to be cleaned up on Help.

And all I'm trying to do is demonstrate to you that you can resolve or understand any situation on the button Help if you recognize it as a survival. There's nobody going to put anything there but you. If you put things there which destroy other things, you get in trouble.

The United States when it built an atomic weapon got in trouble and has been in trouble ever since. It even came up to a point of getting John Foster Dulles. I mean, a cataclysm to end all cataclysms. It built something that was totally dedicated to destruction. And now it seeks to propitiate all the small nations with gifts of food and that sort of thing. It's sort of like, "We didn't do it. We didn't do it."

The hell they didn't do it. They aimed a knife straight at the throat of all life forms on Earth. And they will never recover from it, that I assure you. That is why I am perfectly happy to curse the government, although it's something like kicking a dead dog.

They will never recover from this amount of threat and generating this amount of fear. Probably nationalism itself will cease. Probably these peoples will go on in one form or another, but under some different scheme, because a terrible sin has been perpetuated against man.

You would have to figure out defenses against this weapon. You would have to take extraordinary actions to nullify this weapon before you could even begin to climb out of the mudhole of the destruction threatened. It's tremendous. It reaches every person on Earth, it reaches every cat, it reaches every life form that breathes in air. It probably does not reach all of the animals of the sea.

And I was speculating the other day and wondered whether or not these sea cycles didn't start with all land animals being wiped out by fission. Sea animals, still there. We have to go pick up a fish and eventually graduate out on the beach and start the evolutionary cycle all over again. I mean to check, by the way, with E-Meters and so forth, the possibility that these sea cycles aren't to some degree mixed up with fission, radiation, and if there aren't many of them. There might be many of these evolutionary cycles as described by Darwin and as confirmed by us.

Now, here — here's a point. Here is morality. Here is sin. Here are all the incalculable small zigzags in the thinkingness of a preclear. Here is the basic warp of his intentions. Here are all the things man is worried about, essentially; all in this basis of, "Is it right to help people or should I really destroy them?"

Now, all of this pursued from this one point — a very interesting point: Did a thetan actually and natively desire to as-is and knock out everything? Or did a thetan natively desire the survival of many things? Now, what did a thetan desire? Which one?

Now, we could answer that by opinion. We could have an opinion on it. But I tell you that the opinion which is normally used as a scientific fact isn't one. It isn't one at all.

We had to know whether or not a thetan was really going toward the destruction of everything on all eight dynamics, you see, that had any mass, space, energy, time connected with it. In other words, was he really going to some nirvana of nothingness or was it all right for something to survive? That's an interesting, interesting question, and that question is at the crossroads and was the crossroads of Dianetic and Scientology research.

It was an opinion. Just like "Man is basically good" might have started out as an opinion. But here was something that needed proof before processes could be engaged upon that would confirm one or the other.

And the process that came up in the train of research that proved it was "Havingness." Havingness was the little tag that was left out. Now, here — here you have survive and havingness. If a person benefited from havingness, he then benefited from survival, right? And if a person became upset when his havingness ran down, then again, his goal must be toward survival.

But if all you had to do was take everything a person had, kill his body, fix him up so he couldn't see space anymore and make him well thereby, then of course the goal was in the direction of "Nothing must be left." See, in other words it was proper for him to make nothing out of everything, don't you see? And then that would have been the direction of processing, and you would have gotten a Clear, per se.

The oddity is, and the horrible — the horrible jest is this: People think that's the direction they're going. But those people are inverted.

Out of disgust and despair alone will a person abandon his mass and possessions and engage upon succumb activities. Disgust and despair — he's given up, he's quit, he's through when he starts that. That he can engage upon them at all is quite miraculous in that he can really destroy himself. We look at the other side of the fence here, and we have to make up our minds that it's all right for certain things to survive.

Now, oddly enough, you can't run that as a process. It would be the key process but you can't run it as a process. "Is it all right for that wall to survive?" "Is it all right for you to have facsimiles that survive?"

Well, it's not because you eat everything up that you look at — a lot of people believe that. They believe a facsimile dies because they look at it and they have the power of as-ising it. It's not because of that. It's because of something else. That if they don't create-create-create, it ain't. You see that?

If you stand still — if you could actually stand totally still and gaze totally at that wall and in no way contribute to it, you understand, you'd very shortly have no wall. See, this is the ne plus ultra.

Well then, a person thought it was because he was doing something to the wall or because his look was "acidous" that the wall disappeared. That wasn't so. He just stopped contributing. All you have to do is stop contributing anyplace and you get a vanishment.

So as he looks at the wall, he's got to contribute to it a little bit. You've got to hold it there. And nearly every thetan there is, is dramatizing this.

He has to hold his aberrations in place in order to inspect them; he has to keep adding to them in order to look at them. But he does this on such a "left hand mustn't know what the right hand is doing," and his irresponsibility for it is such that he can actually keep aberrations in place. That is the marvel.

In insanity, if you start hitting a button with the materials you have right now, you will see some insanities just fold up — just (snap) bang. And you'll say, "Where'd they go?" Well, think of the tremendous effort it must have been to hold them there. Actually, they're such an unnatural condition, they crack up fast. It's also true of a psychosomatic illness. It's such an unnatural condition that it is easily broken up if you just know the button. Why? Because he has to contribute to it to have it. Do you see this? All right.

Then there were these two directions: Either the thetan's total goal is to have nothing and everything be as he is (because he does not have mass or energy or space or time), or it was all right to have some things survive. But there was no process when we found out, finally, that it was all right to have things survive.

So we found this — I found this was all right with everybody; I found this was the one thing which made them go on ticking, the one thing which made them capable in any way, which made them happy — was it had to be all right for some things to survive. But how do you run it?

Now, we could think of a lot of ways of running it, but every process there is that is a good process must obey several little rules, and one of them is this — one of them is this: Does it increase havingness?

So you ask somebody, "Is it all right if that wall survives? Is it all right if the table survives?"

And he says, "Yes." And he looks at it for a moment, see, without contributing to it.

"Is it all right for this chair to survive? Is it all right for this ashtray to survive? Is it all right for that door to survive?" He looks at it for just a moment, you see, without contributing to it. He puts the survival on it when he is the author of it. You do that very long and his havingness goes zzzzt — nothing.

In other words, the process itself just runs him out the bottom fast, although it's the perfect process. You get the idea? It's the perfect process that won't work. That's the trouble with nearly every perfect process. It's only perfect theoretically. In practical application it's nonfunctional, which makes a sort of a liar out of the whole thing. In other words, you have to have another process and there have to be some other ingredients to get any gain for a case. All right.

So it was all right to have things succumb. Well, was anything really dangerous to a thetan? Yes, having nothing — having nothing, no interest, nothing to do, no place to go, no problems to solve — nothing. Interesting, isn't it, that there was a direction he could go that he better not go, and that was the direction of nowhere. Nowhere and nothing. The motto of a thetan: "Anything is better than nothing," according to a thetan. That's his motto. "Anything is better than nothing."

Well, he gets so afraid of having nothing that he makes it, and you get a destruction. But even destruction is still having something because you can alter-is debris and help it to persist. And his ideas of what he actually can have downgrade to a point where he says, "Well, I can have it if it's broken up and twisted up and nobody else wants it. Then I will be able to have it. So the thing to do is to destroy everything down to this level, and "Us Hitlers and Mussolinis and Stalins and so forth, if we just mess things up enough, nobody else will want them and we'll have something." You get the idea? It's a very, very degraded state. But destroy, oddly enough, is still a method of having. Fantastic. It is also a case of "who would want it?" But it is still a method of having. Very, very low on the scale.

Any civilized peoples eventually come to some sort of an attitude toward soldiers. Maybe early in their career or something like that, when they can afford a lot of destruction, they say, "Well, soldiers are fine." Then they get to a point of where the Chinese got to when I knew them and they say, "Well, horrible diseases, locusts and soldiers" — data of comparable magnitude. Fascinating, fascinating. Dedication to destruction. Well, you can only afford dedication to some destruction when you have tremendous havingness.

If you've got a thousand sets of glasses and you don't consider them very valuable and you break one, why, you say, "So what." But have just one glass left of one set that was owned by your great-grandmother, and you thought was very pretty, and break it and see how you feel. You get the idea?

So that when individual possession drops low, then destructive agencies lose face. They lose face. And you get the soldier losing caste. You get other agencies of destruction losing caste. And you get more and more concentration on "Let's preserve it." Greater and greater concentration on "Let's preserve it"; greater and greater disgust by the general populace for destructive agencies.

And by the way, with a whole world crowded up so everybody is wearing on everybody else's elbows compared to what it was a few thousand years ago — actually I think Houston now has about seven or eight times more people in it than Rome, or maybe it's twenty or thirty times more people than Rome (you know Texas). With everybody rubbing on everybody else's elbows, how would you like to be the fellow that's standing there with the bomb that would destroy everything? Do you think you'd be popular?

No, you wouldn't be popular even if you had butterfingers and kept dropping hostesses' cups and saucers. There was a time when no host or hostess would have thought very much if you dropped a saucer or two at a party. Well, they think so today. As a matter of fact, you're liable never to be invited again.

Now, the people are getting anxious about this point of survival. Per person, there is evidently less to have. The cities are more crowded. The countryside is less yours, don't you see? You try to make it up in cumbersome possessions like cars and junk, one kind or another.

Now, individual then starts to pull it all in to his chest, doesn't he? He starts to pull in as his survival goes down. Then he becomes more and more anxious — the survival of things. He wants it in where he can inspect them closely, get the idea?

He'll use tricks in order to get something to survive. He's no longer relaxed. Why? Because he isn't permitted to contribute to stuff that's way out there. He can't see worlds, he can't see great green fields. And these things are not his anymore, and he can't contribute to those things anymore, and so he gets stuff in close. You find model railroads and that sort of thing.

Even when I was a kid I often used to wonder why kids played with trains because I used to go down and play with my trains. You know, they were man-sized trains, they were real trains. Brakeman never came along and told me, "Little boy, you're liable to slip and get your foot underneath the car and cut your foot off," and horrible stories, horrible stories. They never said that. They'd say, "Whatcha doing on top of the car? Come on in the caboose."

I quite regularly would ride up to a small switching town just outside of the place where I was and ride back again in the matter of a summer's day. It was interesting that nobody was trying to deny me trains or kick me off, and I wasn't very old. It was perfectly fine.

Now, what do you have to do to have a train? You go down here in the B&O yards and you'll find all the brakemen down there are running a can't-have on you about trains. They've got trains pulled in to their chests, if you can imagine it.

Also, trains are getting scarce. We're told down here in an investigation — investigation and the public relations activity are the same thing in the Senate — and the railroad boys down there were saying that unless the government did something and took things off the back of their neck, why, they'd have to give up their railroads. They'd have to turn them over to the government because they could no longer run railroads with the government aiding and abetting all the railroads' competitors and refusing to let the railroads earn a living.

Well, however this was going, here was the government running a can't-have on the railroads. Railroads didn't realize the government is its own business and its own organization, has its own mest and hasn't anything to do with the rest of us. By golly, they were still under the belief the government had something to do with the railroads, you see?

And the railroads actually were trying to pull the railroads in to their chest. And the government was just trying to pull what it had — not even railroads — in to its chest. They're both anxious about havingness, you see? And as a net result, if you went down here in a — the B&O yard, why, and tried to walk through a couple of freight cars, you'd probably get a nightstick wrapped around your skull. It would not be smiled upon, that's for sure. In other words, you can't have those railroads. You can buy one if you buy a ticket and it's all in good order and so forth, but things aren't that way anymore.

Now, after a while they'll get down so low, they'll start abandoning. See, here was the railroads trying to abandon the railroads to the government. Well, they'll get down to an abandonment point where there's nobody around and everybody can walk off with the equipment and nobody owns it. The equipment is still there but it can't be observed. You see the points which are being followed here?

At first there's lots of havingness. There's lots of things you can contribute to, so then, therefore, there are lots of things you can have. And then people get anxious about this because there are too many people to have these things. Somebody gets anxious about it — destruction, things like this come up — and we get down on a little bit lower plane. And we get the idea of individuals who have to have these things. They have to have their stamps all over them, you see, and they have to have barbed-wire fences built around their possessions. You see? And then we go down a little bit lower and we find these — even these individuals are starting to throw things away. And the final thing comes out — simultaneously with arriving at "only one" on the Tone Scale (I mean, on the dynamics) — simultaneously with arriving at "only one" on the dynamics, we arrive at the same time at destruction of everything.

But a destruction is a final effort to have. Now, that sounds real funny. But you could have Hitler sitting there with a Germany he hadn't even bothered to put back together again and racing all around Europe to have something. The guy was nuts. Wasn't he?

Audience: Yes. Mm-hm.

The one smart thing for him to have done was to consolidate a Germany that was in shreds. He hadn't begun to put Germany back together again. He hadn't given the people the light car he promised, he hadn't built any autobahns, he hadn't seen that his structures and manufactories were up to standard, he hadn't vaguely entered into the field of foreign trade the way he should have.

Yet he was in possession of the world's chemical production. See, he had the most of it there. He had a tremendously well worked out espionage trade system which was hand in glove — espionage and trade, side by side. He could control trades one way or the other. He frankly was on the road to having everything anybody could have dreamed of in Germany — a prosperous country — and he took the rest of Europe. Well, what did he want with the rest of Europe? And, well, he obviously couldn't have the rest of Europe because the next thing you know, he declared war — and this was his final insanity — on England.

He shouldn't have done that. That was real stupid of him. Because he didn't yet have a Europe consolidated. His SS boys were still blowing their brains out trying to get enough people killed so they could have law and order. You know, I never figured out how they figured that out, but they did.

Well, they didn't have Europe, and here they were trying to bite off Russia, England, other countries — wow! And what were they doing biting off Europe when they hadn't yet had Germany? And I don't believe if you'd asked Mr. Hitler, "What part of that body could you have?" — I don't believe he could have answered you within a couple or eight or ten hours of comm lag. Because, brother, he didn't have anything up close anymore. You see this? He wound it all up in destruction, and I guess he could have that but he's not around to enjoy it as such. He's probably flubbed it, and he's probably shoveling coal up in the Polish mines or something now.

He's a very fine example of somebody who had to destroy in order to get that much alter-isness, so he could at least have some debris. And the rest of the world thought he was trying to have Germany, thought he was trying to have Europe, thought he was trying to have Russia, England, do you see? The rest of the world thought he was trying to have something. And they were right, but they never knew this: He was only trying to have debris.

So they would give the man respect. He shouldn't have even had the respect of his own people. See, he wanted debris, that was the only thing he could have. He couldn't have had a single manufactured product of any kind.

Well, all right, this Help thing parallels all this I've been talking about here. It parallels this scale, and as you run Help on people, you see this scale for the first time with great rapidity in any one case. This Help button run in brackets will run up the gamut.

Now, all you will see if you're observing very poorly is that it runs from Destroy up to Help. The answers will be: "All right, how could you help yourself?" and the fellow will say, "Destructiveness, destructiveness." And you'll say, "How could you help yourself?" "Destructiveness, destructiveness."

After you've asked him the question twenty times, why, he may get the first one where he says, "Well, I could help myself." And he gives you a method of helping himself, you get the idea? But in the space of about twenty questions, he'll run out of the destroy and into the help. Well, it's one of the fastest processes you ever looked at.

And it's tricky that it runs at all. Funny part of it is, you are not inventing methods of help. Notice the type of process it is. You're actually as-ising old postulates, more than anything else. Now, you shouldn't have your preclear looking for old postulates. You don't care whether he invents new ones or old ones, but you're running the significance out of the case. That's what you're doing. You're actually running significance out of the case.

Now, you don't care what the significance is, but it just happens that it approximates these havingness scales and it goes from the bottom on up the line. You'll run up through destroy, and you'll generally, on any button or any dynamic, get yourself a few destructive replies.

And they're liable to go by harmonics. You're liable to get propitiation, destruction, help. First answer — you should be alarmed at this because you won't find it very often: First answer on, "How could you help another person?"

"Well, I could buy him a yacht."

Well, that's perfectly all right, but you as an auditor should well apprehend that about five or ten questions later the response is liable to be something like this: "How could I help another person?"

"Yes, I repeat the auditing command. How could you help another person?"

"Well, I could take a small knife and I could peel off all of his skin, an inch at a time."

You'll see this thing running through these harmonics. The fellow goes through — instead of contribute, he's got propitiate. See? Way down low.

And then he comes up to being covertly destroying, and then he runs up into "destroy hell out of," and then he runs out, "Well, we'll destroy it but we might let some of it live." And then we run on up and we finally get into help. And then we get a gradient scale of help.

Now, we're actually as-ising postulates and significances, and we are not handling mass, which is quite remarkable because it's a significance process. And we thought that there was no possibility of a significance process ever working, and suddenly here's a significance process that works. Wild, isn't it? All right.

Now, that's one process. But remember, there was a common denominator of all these stages of survive and mass, and that was keep or have. See? Now, the common denominator is not "throw it away." That is an unreal, an unnatural action — it is over here on this succumb side. You see, we already decided that havingness was okay. Well, not-havingness is not okay. See? It sounds so — so blunt. It's so true, though. To get rid of things, to sweep things out, to break things up. These things are never all right casewise.

You can often afford them. You can recover from them. In the natural course of thetan events, you'd better not try to keep everything you've got because it'll bury you someday. You get the idea?

But it is never, casewise, all right to run a process that throws things away. You see that? It's just never all right. That's it. I mean, it just never works. The more you throw things away or run destructive or pitch-it-out processes, why, the lower the case is going to go on an APA and IQ and the rest of it. I mean, just make up your mind to it.

The fellow's ambition is to get rid of, at once, everything he's got. "Well, fine," you say, "if you just approximated this as the mind goes, we just have it made."

Well, I'm probably the first investigator along this line that has cottoned to this and has not Qed-and-Aed with what everybody wanted. Everybody apparently wants to get rid of everything, when you finally start picking them up in mental health, see? They apparently do. You go along with that, boy, you've had it.

There is no process of "get rid of it" which can be safely run over any length of time at all. Even Dianetic engram erasure, for heaven's sakes, left you the energy without the significance. But let's take a look here at this and find out that the common denominator of therapeutic action is to keep it, which is to say contribute to it, which is to say survive. And you'll find all of those things working out on one single auditing command which is, "Keep it from going away."

"Keep it from going away" might mean continue it. It might mean hold it there mechanically, close to you. It might mean a lot of things, and therefore it should be cleared with the preclear quite often because it now means something else.

He'll do one thing with the command, he'll do another thing with the command. And if you tell him what the command means, why, you're being very foolish because the command is rigged to go one way and then the other way.

"Keep it from going away" might mean continue it. It might mean simply contribute to it. It might mean hold it from leaving the geographical position of the body. It might mean an awful lot of things, so you just better start clearing it.

I spotted one here last week where the command had not been cleared regularly. Because it can mean a lot of things and it is purposely a double-entendre. And if you ever run this into some other language, for heaven's sakes pick up something that's equally a double-entendre, you get the idea? It's a pun process. We don't care how he keeps it from going away.

Now, you get the idea of the fellow who — he can't have the green fields anymore, so he has to have possessions close up. He holds those possessions to him. That's one method of keeping things from going away, isn't it? Well, he'll take some of these possessions and he'll put them into glass jars, or something of the sort, so they can't disintegrate. In other words he'll continue them. That's keeping them from going away, isn't it? Prevention of departure by any means or vias.

Now actually, you have to do most of these things, or all of them at once, in order to get the command totally executed. So that he executes parts of it before he executes it totally shouldn't be a matter of surprise to you at all. As a matter of fact, it's the common course of processing on it.

So we get the other process that is the hot process. The other process. One process here was simply the whole process, which is survival. We get the idea of continuous survival. The fellow will give up a reactive bank that he's possessing reactively and obsessively if he can have any bank.

So you have to make him sure that he can mock things up, you know — and so that these things that he mocks up will continue, that he does have the ability to continue these things — before he'll give up obsessively created pictures, don't you see? It's just a matter of mass. He doesn't want insanity or anything else. He doesn't want conditions. It's all a matter of mass, energy, space and time. These are the things he wants.

And as a result — as a result — the idea of help must be straightened out so that he won't destroy. And then you have to straighten him out on the basis that he can create and possess and pull to him other things — masses.

Quite remarkable, but he has to have an assurance that he can do this. Otherwise, he won't come out of the woods and he won't give up all his automatic gimmicks and gewgaws and so forth that he's been keeping around. And his anxiety is always an anxiety about havingness; his anxiety is always an anxiety about continuous survival, continuance and so forth. Those are his basic anxieties — all of them center around this one thing.

So you got to have survival and havingness in the processing. And the individual himself has to be fully aware that he is creating something and that he himself is keeping it from going away before we get a breakthrough on a case. He doesn't dare give up the automaticities of yesteryear before he's got them today, you see?

Now, you can take Help all by itself and you can produce a new brand of human being. So here is another method of arrival. There is a method of arrival on this, then. I mean, it's someplace you can go which is a direct approach.

Now, oddly enough it's a possibility that clearing Help, all by itself, would make a Clear. (I told you there were lots of routes.) And there's a possibility — and this has been done previously — that simply having him mock things up and keep them from going away, regardless of "Hold it still" and "Make it solid," will make a Clear. Got that?

Now, it's an oddity, but in running Help you have to sustain it with running a bit of Connectedness here and there. You have to run some Trio; you have to do something else. You got this? Because if you tried to run that for 125 hours, you'd find his havingness was "went."

Just by talking to you it would go, not because he was running Help. Help increases his havingness all the time. It gives him new ways and freedom to contribute, and the freer he is to contribute, the more he contributes, and his havingness will continue to go up.

But just talking to you at the same time he's doing this will take enough edge of it off so that you'll find that you cannot run it on a forever basis without chopping his havingness to ribbons. So you have to run some Connectedness or some form of Objective Havingness while you're running it. In other words, he's — needs a booster; it needs an assist of one kind or another.

Now, as we find that this can run the lowest but doesn't reach the highest . . . By the way, its payoff starts to fade out when you get in the range of Release or something like that — I mean, its payoff flattens. It runs a curve of very high gain very early in the running of it, and then that curve eases off, you see? You need another process to pick it up and make it heavier, stronger, up along the line, and you've got the subjective "Mock it up and keep it from going away."

If you get this just straight and you get this squared away in your belfry, you will see exactly how each one of them integrates toward survival, and that we're really processing only the dynamic principle of existence of Book One. Odd enough, but it's in both cases. We're putting the man, however, in charge of it.

Now, having to be in charge of it low on the scale is itself an expression of anxiety. And when he gets good enough and he's secure enough, he won't care who's in charge of it, and we've gone to OT above cause and effect.

Now, the key processes that you're running, then, are all based on survival. The first one is Help. It takes care of destroy, which is simply an alter-isness and still another effort to have something. And the other one is "Create it." Now that, by the way, if you wanted to get real, real good, you would — you'd recognize something about this "Create it," and that is that it itself could be a step all by itself. You know, just getting the fellow to create it and know he's creating it, and the form is simple and so forth.

But it's part and parcel of the broader step "Create it and keep it from going away." "Mock it up and keep it from going away." Now, we have slipped a little bit when we realize that "Mock it up" still means "Create it," you know? Some people think it's a sloppy "Create it" but it's not. It's really "Create it."

And you have to establish his ability to do any of this "Create it," and he keeps it from going away and so forth, before the step works out.

And it could be said that if an individual could be reassured sufficiently concerning the survival of his possessions, that he would be Clear instantly and at once, and that is probably the only one-shot Clear there is. But in this turbulent world, I don't think it's going to happen in the absence of your processing, since it hasn't happened for the last umpteen billion years.

Thank you.