Okay. This is a talk on the Opening Procedure by Duplication. And this talk covers as well the formula of communication, ARC, and Must and Mustn't Happen Again.

All right, let's go immediately into the process known as Opening Procedure by Duplication. We will discover instantly that we are doing something that everybody is trying to keep from doing when we are making a preclear duplicate.

Way back along the line we discovered that people were not assimilating information in Dianetics and Scientology. This was so bad that today the people who were originally in Dianetics, who — I mean to say, the original people, before there was a Foundation — not one of them, not one of them, ever discovered that there was a science called Dianetics. And the fundamentals of that science were never assimilated by them — period. Never.

They blather around in publications, and they yap and they groan and they moan and they speculate, and they do all sorts of weird and peculiar and horrible things. But never at any time do they actually and really know that Dianetics has a series of precision Axioms, which precision Axioms are: "The dynamic principle of existence is Survive." It's not: "Well, I guess there is also a dynamic principle of existence, but probably we don't know whether or not it's survive, because, you see, it might be 'evolve,' because we don't know, because we don't know," because they don't know there was a science named Dianetics.

The auditors who could not produce results with a science called Dianetics, similar to those who could not produce results with the mother science of it, Scientology, were just right there at that point. They never, never, never discovered that there was a precision science right in front of their nose, and they went on speculating and speculating and speculating.

And here and there an auditor who was very sharp, who was in fairly good condition, would take Dianetics just as it is, just as it was there in Book One, they'd take Scientology just as it has been here for years; and people would start getting well, people would start getting well, people would start getting well. And here were all these other people, ostensibly pretending to use this science, and the people they used it on did not get well.

Well, you say "For heaven's sakes, there's some point here that if you just keep talking at a certain number of people then only one, two, three of twenty or thirty people would eventually be able to perform these processes." So we were up against it, tight — against this problem called training. And the problem called training was actually the problem of getting some-body to use Dianetics and Scientology as they exist — not as they're speculated about — but as they exist. Because these are the result of twenty-five years of very arduous experimentation, research, application and so forth. And where an auditor who knows these things and who uses these things, uses them, people get well.

But here we would teach a class of, let us say, thirty people and three of these people would come up at the end of this class being fairly good auditors and twenty-seven of these people would come up being terrible auditors. I mean just grim, that shouldn't happen to a hound dog — even in Alabama.

And we actually went on like this for years. So there was some basic discovery that hadn't been made. This is what you can say. I'll just … Being very ordinary, routine and normal myself, I'm perfectly willing to take the responsibility of not having made the discovery necessary to train people until a short time ago. Now, that discovery is under the heading duplication.

The twenty-seven people who could not assimilate or use these processes on a preclear had one factor in common: communication difficulty. And that communication difficulty summed into one thing: inability to duplicate.

You say, "red," they say, "blue"; you say, "as," they say, "for"; you say, "The dynamic principle of existence is survive," they say, "The dynamic principle of existence is evolve." Why? It's not that "the dynamic principle of existence is survive," as an Axiom, is untrue. That is not why they do this. This has no bearing on it! Believe me, this has nothing to do with the problem. The truth of the Axiom, or the truth or cleverness of the missed reception of the communication, have nothing to do with this. It's a much more mechanical thing. It's just the in-ability to duplicate. And that's all there is to it.

It wouldn't matter if somebody told them their car license was X264. They would say, "Well, my car license is X391." And you'd say, "But that is not your car license."

"Oh-ho, yes, that's right. My car license is X149." You say, "But look, X149 isn't your car license." They'd say, "I know what my car license is. You trying to fight or some-thing? It's QT62!" Well, this, you see, is very unreasonable, isn't it? And you're looking at aberration itself. Aberration is the inability to duplicate, fear of duplicating, preventing duplicating, impossible to duplicate; and that can be summed up into aberration.

Now, we take a line of soldiers … This is one of the oldest experiments known to armies. I'm sure that Julius Caesar's boys got a laugh out of this every once in a while. They'd take ten soldiers and they'd whisper to the first man, who was to whisper to the second man, who was to whisper to the third man, who, in his turn, was to whisper to the fourth man — you know, we were to relay this message down a line of ten soldiers. And we whispered to the first one "pax vobiscum"; and the next boy on the line had this message, received by the first one, whispered to him; and when it got all the way down the line we found out what the tenth soldier knew had started in at the beginning of the line: "twenty-three skidoo." Any time you want to conduct this experiment, you're very, very welcome to do so. It's one of the oldest experiments there are. We whisper a message and it's relayed man to man over a large number of men. And it isn't that it will be incorrect as — in direct ratio to the number of men there are. This is not true. It gets incorrect after the second man. The second man will receive the message slightly altered. And he's just as likely as not to completely change the message. And he is as likely to not — the next man up — to completely change it again. I mean, it's not a gradual disintegration of the message we're looking at. I mean, they just … It's the exact ratio to another thing, though: It's the position on the Tone Scale of the person doing the relay of the communication. And there's a great deal of material devoted to this in Science of Survival. When you're studying the Chart of Human Evaluation be sure and look at that very closely.

The twist on communications in the column on communications is simply the degree that duplication is not undertaken by the individual — in other words, the degree to which he will cast aside duplication and will pervert rather than duplicate. And that's all that column means.

Now, duplication is a very simple thing but it can't be followed by most people. Very many things happen if they try to follow duplication. They think duplication is the most horrible thing that could ever occur to anybody. It actually hurts them — hurts them — to duplicate. It hurts them physically to duplicate.

Now, I'm not stressing this; it's actual pain, actual physical pain. They'll turn on somatics in their head and their back, and so forth, if they do the same thing twice.

Now, you want to know … Let's just go wild in the field and apply this to another thing. Let's apply it to the second dynamic and find out why some-body can't — and just between us girls and guys here — why somebody cannot perform a sexual act. Well, of course, sex itself is duplication, isn't it? You see, a duplication goes to each one of the dynamics.

We look over that and we see that sex is very seriously devoted to duplications. It's duplication of the person in time up into the future, you see — very tricky type of duplication — but it's still just duplication.

And we discover, oddly enough, that when a person starts to deteriorate on this ability to duplicate, the first thing that happens is that he cannot — let us be frank here — he can not ejaculate more than once; see, only one orgasm. See, he couldn't right away have another ejaculation.

And you'll find many families are able to have one child, and after that they can't have any more children. See? Nothing has actually occurred here except that we mustn't duplicate, that's all.

Sometimes we'll find a family, they have a boy and then a girl. Well, that's not quite a duplication, see, so they'll say, "Well, that's what we really want; that's what we ought to have — just a boy and a girl and that's plenty for us." How about some replacements? You need a few troops, you know, a few replacements. But this is a matter of no duplication. So we discover the second dynamic going to pieces to the degree that a person cannot duplicate. But what kind of duplication? This we're talking about is physical duplication, isn't it?

Well, if our awareness of awareness unit, the thetan, cannot himself countenance duplication, he will not permit the body to duplicate, and so there goes the second dynamic.

Let's look at sex in another quarter here; let's look at promiscuity. Why is it that this fellow has to chase all around and have one girl, and then another girl and then another girl and another girl, and never have the first girl twice? Hm? He just can't duplicate. There he can't duplicate the process of duplication. So, of course, Freud, looking at life in general, thought to him-self, "Ah, my. It must be sex," because it is so obvious in sex. But sex is no more all of life than the dynamics are all devoted to sex. The dynamics are each one themselves from the first to the eighth, and each one of them is subject to this "can't duplicate." Now, what did you think of the thetan that can't create another thetan, huh? What would you think about this fellow? I mean, you could think some pretty snide things. This fellow, he's there three feet back of his head and he couldn't make himself, knowingly, another person, entirely new, three feet in front of his face, while he is still three feet in back of his head. Aw, that'd be — nobody's this bad off. Can't create his entire complete individuality at one fell swoop — bang! — by simply making a postulate? Somebody can get that bad off. Well, that's no-duplicate on the first dynamic, you see, when a person can't do this.

All right, let's go up to the third dynamic. And we find out that there can't be two Roman Catholic churches. The first person that'll say anything about this at all is the Roman Catholic church. There just mustn't be two churches. As a matter of fact, the Persian god Mithras was far better worshipped throughout the Roman Empire in the early days than Christ. Mithras was the god of the Roman soldier and Christianity swept in on Rome and borrowed a lot of facts from various quarters. But they discovered that there was only one religion which was very, very close to Christianity and that was the temples of Mithras.

And this was very close to Christianity — it promised life immortal; it had many tenets which were quite similar — and early Christianity could not rest until it had taken every temple to Mithras down. And they took the religion of the worship of Mithras to pieces, to such a thorough degree, that for a thousand years there was no slightest trace of a temple of Mithras. There was no trace of it. Every book, every frieze, every temple, was just knocked to pieces.

Well, now Christianity didn't do that to the worship of Zeus. They didn't do that to the worship of many, many gods. The Roman gods came forward so that even in universities today where they're majoring in mythology they know about them. I mean they just came right through to us — very obvious. The students today studying that sort of thing know all about them.

But what about Mithras? Well, he is still very much in a shadow. And yet, he was the most popular god of the — contemporary with Christ and had the most temples. Too close, wasn't it? Couldn't tolerate this duplication.

Now, here, though, is your "don't duplicate," "can't duplicate." "There can't be another group. There can just be us Christians. There can't be an-other group similar to us Christians." Of course, somebody who was wildly different, such as Zeus, temples of Hercules, and that sort of thing — wildly different, you see: "Let them live. Let them live." That's not close enough, you see? But anything real close-in they fight — won't let it duplicate. Now, that's third dynamic.

Fourth dynamic: What if some men showed up here on earth with a tail? Or with only two toes on each foot? Or, like Walt Disney's comic characters, three fingers on each hand? This race suddenly showed up, and began to walk around and do things and talk and relay communication? You and I would be issued hunting licenses for these people in very, very short order. I can assure you of that.

But let me assure you that a two-headed race that ran on all fours would probably be regarded as a scientific curiosity. We would not be called upon to immediately murder this race to the man. See? It's quite different. But if close in, then we really would go on a hunting expedition.

Let me give you an example of this: The American Civil War, variously known as the War Between the States and the War of the Rebellion, and other such things, depending on what state you happen to be talking to people about. The killed, by the way, in this war, was 385,000 young American boys. That is a fantastic figure, since it was only 38,000 for the greatest war we ever fought, World War I — up to World War II, when they went on a holiday in World War II and they really mowed things down. But up to World War I, and including World War I, the American Civil War was our heaviestcasualtied war. More property was destroyed, more lives lost and more upset taken on the national scene. Why?

It was just too close for a Northerner and a Southerner. They had to really get down and work to get the difference between a boy in Virginia and a boy in Pennsylvania. There was a slight difference of accent, some slight difference of custom, but not very much. There was just enough so that they could say "mustn't duplicate," you see, and so the bitterness and savageness of the conflict became as great as "they mustn't duplicate" and were compelled to try to. There's the level of mankind.

Now, let's go up to animals, and we discover many animals who are quite insane. When animals are quite insane they destroy their young. They do destroy their young. They destroy their own kind.

We get up to the field of the physical universe, and the one thing which this universe cannot even vaguely tolerate is duplication. It can't even vaguely tolerate duplication. It's got to have things in a different position. Now, remember that a perfect duplicate is "same time, same location, same particle." Well, this universe is so totally devoted to having something at a distance — it means two things can't occupy the same space. That is the war cry of the physical universe: "Two things must not occupy the same space. There must be a difference." And when you get two things occupying the same space, or when they try to, you get an explosion. This pressure which you feel when your hand touches a wall is the physical universe expression that there must not be a duplication. And the closer you press and the harder you press, the more resistance there is — not to anything else than duplication. It's simply a postulate: "Mustn't duplicate." I don't think you have ever thought of pressure that way before, but that is it. And it is that very same pressure which besets some person who is thoroughly trapped in this universe when you start to ask him to duplicate anything.

Now, the communication formula is: cause, distance, effect, with duplication at effect of what emanates from cause, and duplication at the reversed point of what emanated from effect. In other words, to get the formula of two-way communication, you'd have to have a duplicate, and a duplicate back again. When you get any difference — when you have cause, distance, effect, where effect now has to duplicate cause; and when you get where effect was new cause, distance and a duplication of where the effect was before — when you get that kind of a situation, and there is any slightest difference in time or in space, you get time. There's time; time is a no-duplicate, you see.

So people get aberrated agreeing with this universe. And then they get aberrated on the subject of time, and then they've got a fine time track, they have. See? I mean, it's just this one thing: it's just the anxiety that we mustn't duplicate. Harder and harder and harder they press into this — mustn't duplicate, mustn't duplicate, mustn't-mustn't-mustn't-mustn't — and all of a sudden, surrender, and they do duplicate. But now they're duplicating obsessively. So we get a habit. We get a habit.

A fellow starts in to take a drug, or something of the sort, and he can't live unless he takes it again. "It must happen again, it must happen again, it must happen again": this is an obsession. "It mustn't happen again, it mustn't again": that's no duplication — a resistance toward duplication. So these are the two postulates, by the way, which more or less make time.

People go around, they go into an operation; go down and get operated on. And this operation is painful or it's a lot of other explanations — who cares — but the common denominator of this is after the operation has happened, why, they go out of there saying, "It mustn't happen again. It mustn't happen again. I just mustn't get that sick again." You see? "And in order to keep myself from having it happen again, I will have a picture and an energy deposit here which will hurt me every time I think of trying to make it happen again. I will punish myself into preventing it from happening again." See?

And that's a facsimile; that's an engram. They keep that engram up to their chests, and this is why people keep them in restimulation. They keep an engram in restimulation willfully and knowingly so that they will never slip and get so stupid as to have that happen again. And the history of the time track is just the history of things which mustn't happen again. In other words, must happen only once. And out of this we get the computation of the "only one." A fellow finally will get things to such a point — that it mustn't happen again — that he can't be anywhere else but right where he is. See? And it just mustn't happen again. He mustn't be anyplace else; he mustn't do it again; then the next thing you know there mustn't be anybody else. See? He's gotten to a point of where — no duplicate, and you get Hitler. Mustn't be anybody else. He mustn't be anybody anywhere. He's going to make the whole German race commit suicide one way or the other — mad-dog them on in order to impale themselves upon the bayonets of their enemies, as just the finest goal that a German soldier could have.

And before that, we had a fellow by the name of Julius Caesar and he had this same goofball computation. And after he got through with Roman troops at one part or another of the world — he did quite a bit of conquest — why, everybody looked around, and you know, they didn't have any more troops.

And we get a fellow like Napoleon. He was forced into an "only one" classification at the French military academy. He was a Corsican, he was poor, he was pretty freaky, the boys made a lot of trouble for him, and so forth. And by golly, he came out of that fully convinced that there could only be one person left on earth — Napoleon.

Fortunately, he didn't have the cannon and so forth to effect this (obviously to him) desirable goal: There must only be one person left on earth — Napoleon.

And whatever he said to the French people, he did succeed in one thing which we can measure even today. He reduced the stature of the Frenchman by one inch. This was … The goal of Napoleon was to wipe him out, of course, but he did manage to reduce his stature one inch. So we know Napoleon has been present because the Frenchmen are one inch shorter.

Here is "mustn't happen again" going into the "only one," you see. On the first dynamic he can't duplicate, and therefore there must only be him-self. And all the people around him, he thinks, are convincing him all the time, and are convinced, that he mustn't exist. So he's just got to make this thing where he is, right there, survive, and that identity survive and his own importance survive and all these things have got to survive. But nothing else can survive.

And if you can show me any way by which only one thing in this entire universe can be alive, I am sure a lot of nuclear physicists who are now working for the government would be awfully interested.

Of course, I won't go so far as to say that the nuclear physicist, as portrayed in various cartoons, and so forth, is nuts. But I will say that he him-self recognizes that he's not quite right in the head. He himself recognizes this in such institutions as Cal Tech. Cal Tech one time had on its bulletin board a gorgeous cartoon whereby a scientist is standing in front of a huge mob of a conclave of scientists and he says, "Gentlemen, we have at last achieved the highest goal in science." And he's holding up something between his thumb and forefinger, and he says, "Here in my hand I have an explosive which, merely by squeezing, will destroy the entire universe." The goal of science, reached.

You'd think so, with what they're doing, and so on. And you get ahold of most of these boys and they are running the "only one" madly.

Now, Russia, for instance — because it's snowed in most of the time, and so forth — gets to thinking of itself as the "only one." And it gets this destructive attitude. Anytime anybody gets this destructive attitude, it is born out of the fact that he mustn't duplicate.

Now, you see, if he started duplicating other people, he wouldn't be in a complete individuality, would he? Not a complete, utter, absolute individuality. He would have to change his individuality somewhat. He'd have to change his ideas somewhat. He'd have to keep his ideas fluid. He would have to be willing to meet the world as he saw it, in order to duplicate what he sees.

A thetan can be what he can see. He can see what he can be. And when his beingness is fluid, when he's totally capable of looking out here at a rose garden and feeling like a rose garden, when he's totally capable of looking at a garbage can and feeling like a garbage can, just at will, why, he of course is getting along pretty well. He can be various things.

We get the whole subject of beingness out of this subject of duplication. We look at something and then we're willing to be it — if we see it. But if we're not willing to be it, believe me, we'll see it very dimly, because that is just the formula of communication. Here we are duplicating what we see. You follow me?

Now, here we have beingness in duplication. Now, we had "it mustn't happen again" in duplication, didn't we? And all of this comes out of the basic communication formula which is, actually, cause, distance, effect, with intention at cause and duplication at effect.

There's nothing wrong with duplication. What gets wrong is inability to duplicate. That gets very wrong. And people go off to the degree that they are unwilling to duplicate. And in view of the fact that it's all chimerical anyhow, it is simply one's consideration that he doesn't want to duplicate that prevents him from being, prevents him from seeing, from hearing, and so forth — just unwillingness to duplicate, and that's the end of it.

Now, let's take up ARC here in a sudden rush, and let's look it over. We find that affinity, reality and communication are a triangle; that this triangle is interlocked, and that when you drop any corner of this three-way triangle, you drop the other two corners. In other words, if we depress communication we will depress reality and affinity. If we completely depress communication, reality and affinity would cease entirely, cease utterly. That does not exist, with which you do not communicate.

Now, as we raise communication, we find that we raise also, at the same time, reality and affinity. Similarly, if we could raise reality, we'd also raise affinity and communication. If we could raise affinity, we would also raise reality and communication. An auditor knowing this is totally capable, then, of monitoring the activities of a preclear.

Now, what is perfect affinity? According to definition, a perfect affinity would not be a distance thing. There would be no distance involved — neither the prevention nor the creation of distance — and therefore there would be no space involved of any kind whatsoever, and you'd have perfect affinity. But if this were the condition, then reality would be no space and no distance involved, and no problem to duplication, and communication would be instantaneous, absolute and on the same point, wouldn't it? And we get the definition of theta: No time, no space, no mass, no wavelength. And that would be theta. And so we get the most complete affinity there would be — a matter of no distance, and so forth.

But down at the other end of the scale, we would get distance attempted but crushed back in. You see, here we've got an obsessive, compulsive, unknowing collision, near-merging of particles, and we get a solid matter. You know, matter does not quite occupy, particle to particle, the same space. But it's nevertheless crushed space. It's almost collapsed.

And the difference between these two ends of the scale is that matter, at the bottom of the scale, does not know, has no knowingness; and matter would cease to exist somewhere up the scale and we'd finally get the top of the scale where we would get total knowingness. That's the difference between the top and the bottom of this ARC scale.

You must understand that "trying to understand," just as a concept, run on a preclear would produce some interesting results — not recommended as a process, but just "trying to understand." For instance, people go around trying to understand, trying to crush themselves closer to an understanding. And the bottom end of that is MEST. You don't try to understand; you relax and you'll know. That's a difference between these two things.

All right. Now, let's look over the process which, of all processes at-tempted, has been that one best delivering to our hands, good results. Now, this doesn't say it's the best process that would ever be invented. But it does say that practically every process that you could list off here on the subject of duplication — well, they've all been tried and they've been found not to pro-duce as good an effect — not to produce as good an effect as this process: Opening Procedure by Duplication.

Therefore, because of the vitalness of duplication itself, we have to have, then, a process which concentrates on duplication and which, in itself, delivers into our hands the ability to resolve this question of inability to duplicate in a preclear. We must solve the fact that a preclear cannot duplicate.

All right, this preclear has a psychosomatic illness. Why does he have a psychosomatic illness? He was hurt once, or he lost something once, and he's unwilling to duplicate it again and he's reminding himself — this is one of the things that you could say about this — he's reminding himself with this en-gram that it mustn't happen again.

He's got it there; now how are you going to make him let go of it? Well, your best way to make him let go of it is to bring up his capability to duplicate and to improve the body's capability of duplicating. It would be the best way to do this, wouldn't it? Because if it mustn't happen again, and it mustn't happen again, and it mustn't happen again . . . He also has some that must happen again — you know, there are a few that must happen again. But oddly enough, "mustn't happen again" is the keynote here, not "must happen again." There are some things that must happen again: you must eat again. See? You must sleep again. These things must happen again. But "mustn't happen again" is what occupies the stage.

All right, we have a process that does this, and this process is called Opening Procedure by Duplication. Now, we keep calling these processes Opening Procedure. That's merely because we're saddled with them. It isn't because you open a case with them. It just happens to be the name of the process, like its name also might be John Jones.

Opening Procedure by Duplication was the first thing it was called. And it was step one of what we called Procedure 30 — "Dirty 30." Somebody watched this cutting people to ribbons and decided the proper name of this was Dirty 30. And so, Opening Procedure by Duplication was the opening procedure of Dirty 30. So we have it as a name which doesn't mean you open cases with it. It's just a name: Opening Procedure by Duplication. There's another process known as Perfect Duplication.

But we have this process, then, and we had certainly better know this process. Now, as we say, there's just a few processes that we have to be absolutely expert at. This is one of them. And this is one of the roughest processes that an auditor ever tried to do on a preclear if it hasn't been run on himself — so beware.

Furthermore, out in the public, a person can simply read about this process and practically go into a spin. Such a person was an electrician that we know, out in California. And this electrician simply read about this and he flew into such a state of upset that he started writing everybody whose name and address he could lay his hands on that it was a foul, filthy technique which was simply used to induce an hypnotic trance in people. That was Opening Procedure by Duplication. Oh, it was a horrible thing which was simply used .. .

But he and some cultists of one kind or another got together and improved it so that you'd put a mock-up — you have the preclear hold a mock-up in each hand — and put his attention on one and the other of these mock-ups, and do things with these mock-ups repetitively, one after the other. And I don't know how they got over to that, except, of course, it was because they themselves couldn't duplicate.

So everybody will condemn this if you don't watch it. So just don't tell people about it. Simply run it on them. They'll revolt; they'll kick your teeth in; they'll leave sessions, and so forth, if you haven't run enough Opening Procedure of 8-C on them first. If you've gotten them pretty flat with Opening Procedure of 8-C, then you can run Opening Procedure by Duplication. If they do kick back on you by reason of Opening Procedure by Duplication, it is because you didn't run enough 8-C. So that would be, actually, an auditor error, wouldn't it? But it's an auditor error which you will occasionally make, so we won't consider it a very major error.

So they leave the auditing room, so they walk out, so they slam the door, so they tell you, "You're just trying to get me under your control," and so forth — supposing they do all these things; so what. Go back. You get them by the scruff of the neck, pull them back into the auditing room and complete the process.

You might occasionally find somebody so bad off that you had to return and run 8-C without going on with this other, but it'd be best if you run them on Opening Procedure by Duplication.

Well, why do they think it's an hypnotic process? They think it's an hypnotic process because this process runs out hypnotism. What is "hypnotism" but a superfixation on obsession. You know, they have to look at something which they now must obsessively duplicate. And you just start, vaguely, to run Opening Procedure by Duplication on somebody and off will come an hypnotic feeling — only it runs off! It disappears and they become more alert. But while it is going off, they can really feel woozy. See, they really feel fixed.

Opening Procedure by Duplication runs out hypnosis. And because it will run out hypnosis, it then restimulates hypnosis and occasionally makes people feel like they are being hypnotized. So they feel this way; so what. That's their hard luck. They had no business letting themselves be hypnotized in the first place.

All right. It is not an hypnotic technique but produces, if run long enough, alertness. Now, what do we mean by "long enough"? Let me tell you that one hour of this process is almost never sufficient. In other words, you'd start at the least-imaginable time to run Opening Procedure by Duplication, and that would be one hour. That's the least time which you could imagine running this. And that would not be an effective length of time. Two hours and a half would be a practical consideration — not as long as it should have been run, but you'll get away with it — and five hours would be a nice, neat time.

And when you think of Opening Procedure by Duplication, you should think about it that "Well, I wouldn't even really be able to start it unless I could at least run him an hour. It wouldn't be practical to run it unless I could run him two and one half hours. And it wouldn't do anything unless I can run it five." And when you think of Opening Procedure by Duplication, think of five hours of auditing.

Now, that seems to be an awful thing to consign you, an auditor, to — to an arduous hammering and pounding on this. But what do you know, it's very therapeutic for the auditor, just as 8-C's Opening Procedure is very therapeutic for the auditor. He never in his life has had the opportunity to order people around to the degree that you have to order them around to get them to run Opening Procedure of 8-C. And so this is therapeutic for the auditor.

And Opening Procedure by Duplication — to repeat these auditing commands over and over and over … ? Look, I won't teach anybody the remain-der of Intensive Procedure or even involve myself with trying to communicate to them, to the degree that in the Code of a Scientologist today, we say, "We won't engage in discussions — unseemly discussions — on the subject of Scientology." We mean by that we won't talk about Scientology with anybody who has not had five hours of Opening Procedure by Duplication. That's really what that means, that clause in the Code of a Scientologist. It means "If he hasn't had Opening Procedure by Duplication run on him, then he probably would not be able to hear what I am saying, so why talk?" You see? It is as simple, as open-and-shut as that.

Now, let's get back to all of those boys and girls that we were trying to teach to audit, and let's take the twenty-seven students. Three, you see, did learn and the twenty-seven didn't. What was the essential difference? Well, the three could duplicate. They were in pretty good shape. Well, what about the twenty-seven? Well, we can train them now. It isn't because we put them into an hypnotic trance; it's because we run them out of one. We make them alert and alive enough to be able to duplicate without feeling endangered with the processes of Scientology, and they can then use them and they can then get away with it very nicely.

Well, how do you do this process? What are the essential auditing commands?

Well, let me give you the design of the process first. You simply take two items. You acquaint the preclear with them. You know, you've got a book and an ashtray, and they're in two different places in the room — we don't care where — near together or far apart, we don't care, as long as he has to walk between them. He's got to take two or three steps between these two objects.

And with these two objects, and with some acquaintance with these objects — that is to say, "You see that book over there?" We get acquainted with these objects; introduce them, you know. "See that book over there? Well, pick it up. Is it real to you? Can you own it? What's it like?" Anything you wanted to ask him, just make him pick it up. And then make him go over to the second object and say, "Well now, how real is that to you? Does that really exist?" Juggle it around a little while. Get him acquainted with it. And then groove him right on into Opening Procedure by Duplication, which has the most precise commands you ever heard of.

"Look at it."

"Pick it up."

"What color is it?"

"What's its temperature?"

"What's its weight?"

"Put it down in exactly the same place."

"Walk over to that other object."

"Look at it."

"Pick it up."

"What's its color?"

"What's its temperature?"

"What's its weight?"

"Put it down in exactly the same place."

"Walk over to the first object."

"Look at it."

"Pick it up."

"What's its color?" Each time making the preclear state his answer — back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, object to object, object to object, back and forth, with the auditor never varying his auditing command, you see. Never vary that auditing command.

Now, there is nothing magical in the arrangement of those perceptics. See, it's nothing magical — so that you could have several other perceptics. You could say, "Smell it." You could say, "Taste it." But once you've used it you're honor-bound to duplicate the command. So you have to settle on what you're going to call your series of commands, and rather than get into a big argument amongst auditors and preclears, we simply lay down what they are. It's not that they're the most optimum commands or the worst or the best or anything else. It's just what we use, that's all. And these are what we use, and the Instructor will tell you exactly what those commands are.

But the essence of this whole process is repetition with no dependency upon any past moment. Now, let me get awfully clear on that: No dependency on memory or anything of a past moment! Every moment is a new moment!

And when you think of Opening Procedure by Duplication, think of this — if you are tempted to go off sideways in running it or using it, think of this: It's got to be that every moment is a brand-new moment, and you cannot, for one instant, depend upon the memory of the preclear.

You're not going to give him an understood command. In other words, you're not going to tell him now, because we've all settled into it — back and forth, back and forth — you're not going to tell him in such a way that you're going to depend upon your having told him before.

For instance, you've said to him many times, "What is the color?" so this time we're going to shorten it all down, we're going to just say "Color?" You know, "he knows." Oh, does he?

Well, we're going to run a dependency on the past in on this, are we? — a dependency on a past command. Why not just wreck the process? Because that will wreck the process. You've got to ask him every time!

"Do you see that book over there?"

"Well, walk over to it."

"Look at it."

"Pick it up."

"What is its color?" Have you got that? When he answers, when he acks, you act just as though it had never happened before. You see, you never pay any attention to the fact that you've been at this for some time. It's always a new auditing command, even though it's exactly the same one.

And his moments on the time track will kind of go creak, creak, pop! And they'll start to spread apart, because "no duplication" is the downscale effort to become closer and closer between cause and effect, closer and closer proximity, until they are practically merged, but not quite. If they were to-tally merged you would have freedom, but they never totally merged at the bottom of the scale.

So we get affinity, actually, as the distance between cause and effect. And as this distance lessens, we get the Know to Mystery Scale. All that is, is cause and effect, closer and closer together. In other words, these two terminals, cause and effect, are closer and closer together until they finally get a completely solid merger. And you will have people going around who claim that every effect they see, they're afraid they caused it. See, that's just a merger between cause and effect, which means the affinity has gone out of the line. See that? All-right.

This is Opening Procedure by Duplication. It is always new. Every command is newly given, even though it is exactly the same. And he'll first start to fight this, the preclear will, and he'll try to fight it and fight it and he'll fuss, because "it mustn't happen again," you see. You're asking him to do the same motions, to answer the same questions time after time after time. And for a long time he's going to conceive that they are the same questions as he [you] asked before. In other words, he has got what? Obsessive memory. Obsessive memory is occurring here. He knows that these are the same questions. It's all right for him to know it, but it's not all right for him to be bothered with it.

Why do they have all of these new motion pictures down here all the time? They made a motion picture once. There isn't any reason why we couldn't all go back and see it again and again and again, like the British use their jokes.

Nobody in Great Britain would ever invent a new joke; they don't need a new joke; they've got one. A fellow tells it and it's a joke and everybody laughs. All right. All right. They made a picture.

Now, why each year do we have to have a newer, fancier car? Well, actually, up to the time when cars become extremely workable — until they do — there is a reason to change them. But when cars become extremely workable and they go on running and they perform well and the problems of the cars are solved, there is no reason to go on having new models.

And as far as I'm concerned — and as long as we have an internal-combustion engine — why, we had good ones back in 1936. And they're still forming and changing these engines. They haven't made a better engine — honest, they haven't.

The new … Not to give anybody any advertising plugs, but the new Chrysler — that super opposed-cylinder job, and so forth — you run that thing at a high rate of speed for an hour, something like that, and boy, there's enough comes off the cylinder walls, in terms of metal, to make it eat oil for the rest of its life. You have to have an oil truck running along behind you, pumping enough oil in to keep that motor going.

Well, they've got to make it newer; they've got to make it hotter; they've got to make it faster; they've got to make it better. Well, that's just fine. Nothing wrong with this. But if they're dealing with an internal-combustion engine, they should become aware of the fact that they had a real good one in 1936, and that the improvements after 1946, and so forth … Ever since they had that pump (mechanical-pump carburetor) — as soon as they started getting those on, those engines have not been better; they have been worse.

You say, that's an extreme statement to make, but it's not. Anytime that you drive up in a Chevrolet and tell me that you are getting eleven miles to the gallon and tell me that's a better car than when Chevrolets were getting eighteen miles to the gallon … What's it doing? It's taking you places, isn't it? And you're only going to get eleven miles to the gallon now. In other words, you're going to have to work like mad to make enough money to pump gasoline into that thing.

Well, that's because it now has an automatic shift. Who wants an automatic shift with a light motor? The only reason you have a gearshift is so a light motor can be shifted into enough gears to make it perform like a powered motor, you know — so that a light motor with an automatic shift on it is going to make a very dead and relatively dangerous car. You'll never be able to get off the intersection in time. If you have any wrecks you've probably run into an automatic transmission on a light motor. The guy tramps down on it and the car goes no place.

The reason he has got a gearshift there is so he could flip it into low, shoot his foot to the throttle and be off the intersection, you see; go around the corner, flip her into second gear.

A race driver would not know what to do with one of these automatic transmissions. They're just a mess. They eat up about 25 percent of the horsepower of the motor, so forth.

Well, where did we get this stuff? We are improving motors now, or are we just selling new ones? Now, that's about the time somebody should ask, "But this is no-duplicate, isn't it?" Supposing they'd had a wonderful, per-forming, economical motor in 1936, and they'd stopped building it because they had to have something new. You'd say the automotive industry had improved up to a point where it was sane and then started to go potty. Well, that's where pottyness sets in. It's when they no longer duplicate a good product.

I'm not stuck on the time track with that motor, by the way, but I can take that motor and go out and beat most modern cars. The Buick Fireball, 1936 — a wonderful motor. It was a Hudson motor at that time. It was a fine motor, so forth. And these motors, by the way, were built on different principles than the modern motor.

Now, where do we get this business about . . . What do we have to change this for all the time? Why do we have to change, change, change? Because every time you alter, the error persists under conditions of existence. You will learn that. So it's all right to alter, as long as you've got an error. But as soon as you run out of errors, let's not alter. Hm? Let's at least, at that time, be willing to duplicate.

Well, your preclear with a body never does this. What happens? He grows up; boy, he has got this big charge in there. He wants to be big enough so that he, if he meets any big animals, will be able to hit them once and have them fold up. That's the goal of a Caucasian body, is to get to a point where one blow will fell the ox or the reindeer or the deer or something of the sort. And it works real hard, see, and it gets up there at about the time it's eighteen, you know: a senior (high school), about ready to go in for eight .. . Is it fifteen or twenty years they now have to go to a university in order to get out of the freshman class?

Well, about eighteen, the body is getting up pretty close there to a high level of efficiency. It's getting pretty good. It isn't yet able to carry on much endurance but it's getting up there pretty good. Twenty-one, twenty-two, it's picking up even the endurance factors that it ought to have. And it's about twenty-five, twenty-six, the guy is in there real strong now, you see? That body is in, usually, real good shape.

But look what it did to get up there. It altered, altered, altered, altered, overcoming these weaknesses, improving, improving, improving, improving. And it gets twenty-six, and it goes on: change, change, change, change, change, change. What's it changing? It obsessively changes up to its peak of efficiency and then goes on changing, and that is old age. That's how it gets into old age. It goes on obsessively changing from the peak of its efficiency. And it has just never learned to quit that. See, it just ought to hit its peak of efficiency and roll. See how simple that would be? Wouldn't be anything to that, would there?

No, you say a body wears out. Why does a body wear out? Well, one of the reasons it wears out is because it no longer replaces it cells. Its cells get smaller and smaller. Did you know that? The cells of the body get smaller. Old people's cells are smaller than young people's cells. What is this, than a cellular unwillingness to duplicate — in other words, duplicate new cells. Hm? That's all it is.

So this body that is getting old is simply getting less and less willing to duplicate and is getting more and more changing, more and more radical — and will finally get so radical that it'll build cancer cells, or it builds wrinkles or it does all sorts of weird and incredible things, you see. But that's the way it goes on the time track, and so it goes over that peak and then ages. But it spends, today, far more years aging than it does growing. Hmm, this is way out of balance, isn't it?

Your modern society is geared to that. TV — grind-grind-grind-grindgrind; new program, new program, new program, new program, see. It's got to change-change-change, alter-alter-alter-alter. See? No reason why it ought to alter, at all. In fact, there's no reason for TV.

And, by the way, TV would be one of the more interesting ways to break down a society — one of the much more interesting ways to break down a society. Make everybody face only MEST and never face another living thing. See, because TV isn't a living thing; it's just MEST shadows. So you see the social life of a country busting up, and so forth, under the impact of this sort of thing.

People do not know, by the way, that when sitting in front of a TV set they are being bombarded with enough gamma rays to cause a Geiger counter to go hysterical. They let their little kids sit in front of these TV sets. Why don't they let them sit in the middle of Hiroshima? I mean, it's just the same.

There's a desert out here that the government bombed and left it green glass, all radioactive. They carefully told everybody it isn't radioactive, but then I don't know why some of that sand, just a little handful of that sand, put in with a couple of dental plates and a key will make a perfect print today on the dental plates — X-ray plates.

But here people sit in front of this terrific bombardment of gamma rays, you see, just because they can be absolutely sure that thing isn't going to duplicate — isn't going to duplicate. It's sitting there all the time. It's perfectly motionless, actually. But their interests can change, wander and so forth. But there they are, facing MEST.

Well, that's because they've had such bad experiences with other people. You know, "Social life is a bad experience. It really shouldn't be duplicated. You know, you go to parties, and you get drunk, and your husband makes a pass at some girl, you know. Bad things happen, and we just better not duplicate those parties anymore, and so on. Why be sociable anyway? It's much better to sit here and look at a piece of MEST with a glass face on it which changes shadows — much better than to be social." What do you think is going to happen to a country? Just what's happening to it, of course.

Now, the essence of all of this sort of thing, of a constant change, constant newness, thirst for newness, is of course going to run out the bottom of the barrel because there is no state attainable which is going to bring you 100 percent constant newness — can't. And it's not a necessary state, and it's not a sane state.

You should be able to be perfectly overjoyed with each new moment with the same things in it. And if a person cannot experience happiness and can-not experience joy, it's because he cannot face new moments which are the same as old moments. And that's what Opening Procedure by Duplication teaches him to do: to face new moments which are the same as old moments. And when he's finally got that down, he could be happy, he could be well and he won't age. And that's important to all of us, and very important to the auditor. And that's why this is a terrific process and one which you have to know thoroughly across the boards.

Okay.