Female voice: Someone says it takes a Clear to validate a Clear. Uh-uh. Not true. You've had three examples of it, right here in this Unit.

Female voice: I didn't mean to audit one.

Yeah. But, "It takes a Clear to validate a Clear" — no, you don't have to lay down much of an artificial stress on this. There is such a thing as a Clear check sheet. And if an auditor thinks he's got a Clear on his hands, he ought to send for the Clear check sheet. After all, all of the tests are available to any individual auditor. He can send for them. He can do them. He can even send them back for correction.

It would be expected that the person's APA and IQ test would be included in the Clear sheet request. And I see no reason why the auditor who does the job shouldn't be the one answering a question very flatly.

Female voice: Thank you.

Some people will be alarmed about this. But I am not. An HCO could always issue one. In this case, by the way, it'd be the HCO Secretary — the HCO Board of Review or the HCO Secretary.

Now that the HCO Secretary is gone, I can say "I never had an HCO Secretary around who isn't a crackerjack of an auditor." I find out they have to do more auditing in ten minutes than anybody you ever saw on the job. Staff streams by in a mad rate, people come in with tears puddling all over the carpet, "I've just been shot." The HCO Secretary's life is very random, I can assure you — almost as random as the Technical Director's.

HGC preclears, by the way, will be given a Clear bracelet. But that's only because it can well afford it.

I tried to get these bracelets, by the way; I tried to get some kind of a price which would be a dollar and a half or something like that. But it was junk — junk. About the cheapest you can get a piece of jewelry for and then handle it and engrave it and so forth, is up in the teens of dollars.

This thing that's coming as a Clear bracelet is gorgeous as a piece of jewelry. No kidding. It even conies in a jewel box. And the lady's is a very small chain, and the plaque on the lady's bracelet is much smaller than the man's. But nevertheless, that's quite a solid piece of metal. It's sterling silver, but it's sterling silver with cadmium .04, I guess, percent not-pure. And that .04 percent is cadmium and . . .

Male voice: Pure silver is too soft to be of much use.

Well, this is — this is tougher than the ordinary sterling. Because the links wear right in half. I know — I wore an Explorers Club bracelet through the war, and about halfway through the war — I was fortunately sitting at the wardroom table when it happened — the thing just fell off my wrist. I took it ashore to a jeweler and he had to build all the links back together again. Its links, particularly next to the plaque, had just come in half.

Female voice: How about the size of the bracelets? Will they be adjustable? Fit on anybody's wrist?

Yes, ma'am. Any jeweler can adjust it. But if you're here when you receive it, the place that is making them — which is the biggest jeweler here in this area and so forth — all you have to do is walk in there and he'll take off or add links, as many as you want. That was definitely part of the arrangement.

I used to wear one of these things soldered on, by the way. Never did take it off.

This one, just by accident, still has its clasp on it.

Male voice: When do you expect these bracelets to be available?

They'll be available in exactly three weeks. And that — I said exactly three weeks, let me amend that — absolute maximum, three weeks. I told him to put the time in on making precise dies. And he could have gotten them here in a week, but they would have been a sloppier bracelet. Three weeks, exactly. It takes two or three days to get one of the things engraved with your name on it.

Male voice: It seems to me the business of randomity between the "field auditor" and the "staff auditor" or the organization is a matter of the field auditor individuating from the organization due to some consideration of an inability to contribute.

Possibly. I think that this has been, to a large degree, economic. I mean, I think it has not been able to use that many people. And I mean, it's just an economic thing. I mean, I think that was what happened from the beginning. Hm?

Male voice: That is contribute.

That's — so there's a contribution the other way, too. It was economic contributions. In times of scarcity, you get an every-man-for-himself sort of a situation. And I think that was probably — as ugly as that is — I think that was probably the basic on it. Because in 1950 I think there were very few people that — or in England in the early days — there probably were very, very few people that wouldn't have happily just gone on working with the Central Organization, had there been enough cash to keep body and soul together.

I don't know why it takes cash to put the two together. A very close investigation of it has demonstrated that it is mystery, and . . . You don't suppose cash is mystery, do you?

Yes?

Male voice: The way the cash in this country is put together is certainly a mystery.

Oh, that's for sure. That's for sure. Right now we have a situation where it's rather difficult to get people in the Central Organizations. It's rather difficult. We actually have to pick them up and put them together and put them in shape and so forth. But that's mainly because we follow this policy. This policy might interest you because it is more than a policy. It is something we will not do otherwise than, just now.

We have found that it doesn't matter where the person is placed in the organization — with the exception, perhaps, of a typist — person must be a good auditor. It isn't a matter of having all Scientologists in the Central Organization; it is a matter of having good auditors. And we found out that a person who is a good auditor will be able on almost any other post. This is quite a wild one to be as pervasive as it has become.

As a result, you have a lot of good auditors in the Central Organization who aren't auditing. You have some real good auditors in London and here. John is a bearcat as an auditor, for instance, and here he is sitting over in London as an Association Secretary.

And there was a very fine auditor, and a very fine Instructor, one of the very, very best — he was sitting there as an Association Secretary. He's now down in Africa. One of the happiest things that he found in South Africa, of course, was the fact that he didn't have enough business to occupy all of his time, compared to the London organization. And he suddenly grabbed ahold of a preclear — slurp, slurp — and he started auditing. And there was nobody around to tell him he couldn't. And he busily and happily took one of the earlier Clear sheets, and he was walking somebody up toward Clear. Instead of getting administrative reports, I began to get a flood, daily report air letters, on the terrific things he was doing with this preclear. See? Just all rave notices, you know?

And I realized what was happening there. The individual's basic goal, of course, was to make people better, and he was off the paper chain — very, very happy about it.

You don't find — you don't find a person who can't audit well being able to function well in a Scientology organization. It's quite weird. Quite weird.

It wouldn't have been the sort of a coordination that the army would have made. The army says that a — says that a good doctor, of course, has to be cared for like a — like a scurvy pup or something. And they put administrators in the hospitals — do the same thing in the navy. They have a whole series of ranks that are merely administrators. And these administrators are hanging around the fringes keeping the hospitals running and so on, while the doctors merely doctor.

So we're in a different field entirely. It's probably true for the army or the navy, you see, but it's not true for Scientology.

Male voice: This also turned up a few years ago in engineering firms. They found that for darn near any job in an engineering firm an engineer could do the job better than a non-engineer.

That's right. That's right.

Male voice: As a point of interest, they don't do that in the Royal Navy now.

What do they do now?

Male voice: Mountbatten squashed that.

Oh yeah?

Male voice: Every single man who is a man, as opposed to an NCO or an officer, is in bell-bottom and jumper.

Hm.

Male voice: And he's a sailor. And he'll take turn at a gun whether he's a typist or a sick-berth attendant, or what he is. He's a sailor and he's going to run that ship.

This would be the only way you'd ever get anywhere.

Male voice: He's really cleaned it up.

Yeah. Too bad we didn't have that here during the war.

Female voice: With this bulletin on February the thirteenth, what happens to that present time problem process of, "What part of that problem can you be responsible for?"

I'm sorry if that bulletin gave the impression that that was dropped. Doesn't the bulletin say it handled — you handle the present time problem?

Female voice: Well, it mentions Problems of Comparable Magnitude, and Help in brackets. It doesn't mention the other one at all. I wondered if you were dropping that as …

Well, I am sorry. This will require something. You know what most of these HCO Bulletins come from? A pack of profiles come in, and I look these over and I see where goofing is occurring from an ACC; I see where people are sliding or see some specialized piece of information they need. This — you could still get away with this just the way it is written, but this is not a procedure. You handle a PT problem just as you always did. But if the person had one, the terminals of it are still a problem.

Remember, you only handled the problem. See? "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" you said. You didn't handle the terminals, did you?

Now, it finds out that when we start to run Help, the case will again hang up on the PT problem because these terminals are still randomity. Do you understand that?

You handle the PT problem this way: You say, "Do you have a present time problem?"

The fellow drops. He says, "Yes I do; I'm being sued."

You say, "All right. Now, what part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

And he finally orients this. Well, it disappears as a bop on the meter.

Now we go into Help. Oh, we merely eradicated a problem, didn't we? But there are a couple of people on Earth that he would rather shoot than help. You got that? Now, as long as that state of mind obtains, you have a couple of nice juicy terminals that are going to get in your road in running Help.

This was on — this was based, by the way, on an HGC preclear who wouldn't unwind or unravel. We ran "What part of the problem could you be responsible for?" and we got this all damped out. And then we started to run Help and we found out the preclear wouldn't run Help. But he was running Help with a high generality, and he would just yap. And it just was not true, and he was going out of session, he was trying to blow and so on. And I finally got hold of this one and I says, "Now, wait a minute. You got rid of the problem this man was having with his wife and her lover. But you certainly have not gotten rid of wife or lover as terminals. Why don't you turn around and run wife and lover as Help brackets?" Almost blew the guy's head off. And he was hung up right there. And as soon as he got those two people cleared up on Help as terminals he sailed in and cleaned up the rest of Help, and he is now running right on down through the line.

You know, it is one thing simply to observe that a present time problem hangs up a case. But I'm reporting to you simply an observation. There's no explanation for this. See, I've known this for several years; there's been no explanation for it. The explanation is this: The individual on the PT problem is hung up on Help in the material universe, on one or more terminals that he won't — so his case doesn't progress.

He sits there, and every time the case veers around toward this person, he comes off of it at once and he won't have anything to do with that section of his life, you see? And he keeps flinching, and the case tries to run around this thing. Well, this is the explanation for it.

You can run the problem, and you better had run the problem. "You got a present time problem?"

And the fellow says, "Yes."

Well, you'd better run it. "What part of the problem can you be responsible for?" "Problem of comparable magnitude to it," or any other way you want to handle this present time problem, since nobody is telling you how to handle a present time problem beyond giving you all available ways of handling it.

Now, you start to clear Help on him. And you notice that this is rules governing the running of CCH Ob, Help. Well, at this stage when you start to run that, this should have said, " If the pc had a PT problem which the auditor had to clear up," (got that?) "then he should select the most intimate terminals on these and run Help in brackets, a few commands in each bracket." Just to make sure that these people aren't any longer hung up. Do you understand that?

Female voice: Yes.

The person can — the case can hang up because a problem is there, and then can hang up because the terminals are there that he would rather kill than not.

Yes?

Female voice: Do you always run that, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" without terminals, just using the word "problem"?

Oh, you can run that. That's a limited run. His havingness will chew up like mad, but you can still run it.

Female voice: Well, I thought you had to have a terminal there.

I see what you're hung up on. You don't want to run a condition. And you have been thoroughly told, coached and you believe that you must never run a condition, that you must always run a terminal.

Now, I'll tell you something: Auditing is something you get away with. That is what auditing is. And for a little while — now listen to me — for a little while before the Havingness button gets too thoroughly chewed, you can always run a condition. But if his Havingness button is chewed right at the beginning, you're going to have trouble.

So you could say to be safe always run a terminal, never a condition. That's a safe look, don't you see?

Female voice: Yes.

But you can get away with an awful lot. You can get around the edges of this thing and sweep at it. How else would you ever undo an Axiom?

You know you can take all of the Axioms and just tear them to pieces? One right after the other. A datum of incomparable magnitude to the definition for space — that's running a condition, isn't it? You're liable to get the fellow up along the line somewhere and all of a sudden he'll have some space. You've shaken up the definition. The definition is right there in the preclear. You've got all these — rack of Axioms; you could take them from the bottom to the top or the top to the bottom. You could, actually, if you did this and . . . But as you go up toward the top you get more and more conditional. And then when you run into the fact of a thetan, you say, "Give me a datum of incomparable magnitude . . ." " Invent a datum of incomparable magnitude to a thetan." Oh-oh. This is a murderous operation; it is just totally inoperative; it is not something that would work, that is all.

But you can say a datum of comparable magnitude on almost any other Axiom and get somewhere, providing you didn't strain at it. You'll get somewhere for maybe forty-five minutes. Case will feel fine. You shake him by the hand, get off of it, get away from it, run something that has a little havingness connected with it, (clap) and you never notice the difference.

Run it, maybe, for an hour and a half or two hours, or something of this nature. Case all of a sudden goes grog and bog and wiggle and agitate and two or three ridges collapse on him, and you've had it then. Now how are you going to dig him out of this one?

Well, you just have to wait three days and try over again. That's what I always do.

Okay. Does that answer a question?

Female voice: Yes. Thank you.

I'm glad the question came up, because you realize that although auditing runs safely on fixed rules, an auditor can be a reckless driver. See, he can still get around a few curves.

Yes?

Male voice: How would you phrase the Help question on a preclear who has a stuck flow to trying to help a person, who failed and they died? How would you run that bracket?

I'd handle it the same way as any other bracket. I don't see anything special about it.

Male voice: The person's been dead twenty years. Can you say, "How could they help you?"

Oh, sure.

Male voice: And the preclear keeps saying, "Well they can't anymore; they can't do that…"

Good. Well, he'll say that for forty times, and then come up with one.

Male voice: I see. All right. I wonder if there's a gimmick we could use.

No. Well, you could do a lot of things with that. You understand? You've got — always got a lot of answers to it. You could sit down and run the secondary of the person's death. That's one thing you could do. Another thing, you could just have him mock up the person and mock up the person and mock up the person and mock up the person, and all of a sudden something else would blow on the thing. You know? That'd be another answer to the same problem.

Another thing is just to persevere with what you're doing. Or lead him in a little bit, make it conditional, "What if they were still alive, what — how could they help you?" You know?

Remember a thetan is always in a time called a thetan's time. See? Only, you couldn't call it a thetan's time because he's just — he's just not in a time stream. So that any facsimile that he has, has the time tag of "now" on it; then later on gets altered and has the time tag of "then" on it. And you get this sort of thing: Every once in a while a fellow cheats and they get déjà vu; he knows he's been there before, he knows he's done this exact thing, he knows this circumstance, this moment is happening once more. He cheats, in other words. And he thinks it's happening over again. But that isn't what it is; he merely has a terrific knowingness on what is happening.

British movie of the fellow gets invited to a party and he knows horrible things are happening. The thing keeps running this idiotic cycle through and through and through.

For instance, I have an interesting gimmick. I sometimes have to consciously concentrate to watch the nowness of a television screen, because it is much, much too easy — since the whole program is in existence anyhow — it's much too easy to look at the will-be-ness of the television screen. Don't you see? Much too easy.

Or it's very, very easy to read the back of a book before you read the front of it, just as you start to read the front of it, you know? Say, "What's this all about?" Well, you have to localize yourself very precisely in time, see, and you say, "Now I am reading this book, now, and it is two minutes after eight on this date of February the thirteenth, and this is the beginning of the book." It's almost by postulate that you see now.

So an individual answering a question about a person who's been dead, you see, is actually running the thenness of his deadness too thoroughly. And the whole engram is in there with the nowness of the deadness.

You know that was why Dianetics — that was one of the things Dianetics took apart. It was "it was happening now," and you told the preclear to go back on the track. What is interesting was that that was an incorrect command. Actually the track had to go up on the preclear and . . .

Yes?

Male voice: Would there be any possible value on helping a preclear to get mock-ups, of running a control-type process, something on the order of "You get the idea of making a mock-up you can see"?

Yeah. Interesting.

Male voice: Might turn up some interesting things.

Oh yes. I can turn on somebody's mock-ups with an awful wham on this one: "Get the idea of making a brilliant mock-up. Now get the idea that would spoil the game and decide not to." They'll turn on mock-ups that are . . .

That, by the way, was the critical process which told us that ability was never lost. Unwillingness was gained, but ability was never lost. And they'll turn up mock-ups. You can even say this to a preclear who was the blackest black V you ever saw and you — but the shock is so great you have to audit him for shock. And that is, say, "Get the idea of not putting a mock-up out in front of you." And a mock-up will appear. This is old reversal processing — "Try not to be three feet back of your head," you know?

Yes?

Female voice: I'd like to ask whether you think that clearing the word "help" in the sense of definition, as we did in the PE Courses, would pick up a group that's kind of snarling at each other.

A group?

Female voice: Yes.

Oh yes. I think that would be a terrific idea.

Female voice: Just throw it out and let them hack it over.

That's a very interesting idea, clearing Help for a group.

I could say something about clearing Help individually, on individual auditing. You know that if you clear carefully each word of the command separately, all by itself, all the way through, every time you bridge, you really shake this case up. And you'll find out somewhere along the line his definitions for these words begin to shift. And I have been doing this lately, with considerable profit. And I finally got a person who was giving me a dictionary definition of help to actually look at the word. That was quite a triumph. The person says, "Help — well, that's just help" and so on, "and somebody helps you." That was his definition for help, which I think was very cute. I let him get away with it. And after we'd run it for a little while, he says, "Help: that means if somebody is sick you do something for them." I knew we'd get to that sooner or later. That's help. He finally came out with a definition for help.

Yes?

Male voice: The other day, talking about running flows on Help, you said you would change when you got the wide swings . . .

Yep.

Male voice: . . . and as you continued going through the bracket these wide swings would narrow down till they approached null. Now, should we run it till it has come back, so it is pretty nearly null again, or while it's still swinging very widely?

Oh, I'd just keep running it wide. After a while it won't swing at all. It doesn't go down to a null, it just goes down to a no-react.

Male voice: Well, to less and less swing.

Yeah. Well, it just doesn't act anymore. You keep holding up your hand as though the needle is registering something. The needle no longer registers.

Male voice: It just nulls.

You get .the idea?

Male voice: Mm-hm.

So it could swing or not swing, or rise or not. And all of these would be just the action — that what you're doing now with the preclear has no relation to the needle. And that's what you run into.

Now, if you wanted to define that as null, and you wanted to say that the needle was being set for body resistance at that point, yes, you'd get a needle . . . You see what I'm making here?

Male voice: Oh, I see.

I'm just cautioning you against assuming that the idea of help is now doing anything at all with the needle.

Male voice: Oh, I see.

What it does is just swing it wider and wider and looser and looser, and after that it just settles down to being the simple resistance of the body on the meter. See, it actually — the actual thing about it is it gets wider and wider and then goes off the meter. And that you still have a reading, however, is no longer a reading on Help.

Male voice: One other question is, the most intimate terminal on this sheet, what's the "intimate" mean?

To the problem. Let's say his problem of comparable magnitude is the fact that he's getting divorced on Tuesday. Most intimate terminal would be his wife, of course.

Let's say that he'd been fired yesterday. The most intimate terminal is the boss, or the person who fired him. See?

Male voice: Then it would be — would it be necessarily the one nearest to present time?

Yeah. You'll find the fellow will comb back onto other bosses, other wives. The tremendous number of wives that men have had and the tremendous number of husbands that women have had make marital relations quite complicated, you know? But you're Q-and-Aing with the bank if you take another one. And you shouldn't Q-and-A with the bank. You can go right on down and trace this thing clear back to 1000 b.c., you know? Almost every time a person lives he gets married, if he lives long enough.

Male voice: Wasn't there a whole track incident called the Helper?

Oh yes, there sure was.

Audience: (various responses)

Yeah. Yeah, you're liable to run into that. You run into almost anything.

Male voice: And practically all of these volunteer deals on the track, too — "Won't you help us?"

Oh yeah.

You can always count on this factor: That any time you had a road which led out of the morass, somebody used it to go in. The greatest argument against putting a good highway to Alaska was the fact that it could be used to come from Alaska to the US by tanks, which otherwise would have had a hell of a time getting here. Get the idea? So any time you had men of ill will, or thetans of ill will, you could be absolutely sure of two things: One, that they would use any button which would have freed, to trap; and the other, that they weren't around very long and got quickly trapped.

Male voice: Yeah.

You could be sure of those two things. The second is very gratifying.

Male voice: This brings up a point here. You mentioned the other day that ability goes along with willingness to help.

Mm-hm.

Male voice: But there seemed to be some apparent variances from this. Such people as Hitler and Mussolini who apparently had a great deal of ability along some lines — at least, by golly, they sure caused effects all over the place — and yet, I wouldn't call that particularly high on the Help button. How would you explain that?

I wouldn't even try, beyond saying that the ability of the man that was left, the ability of the man that was still apparent, that was still functional, was only a small portion of the actual ability he could have exerted. I would say here you had somebody who was practically in a Clear state who was in no understanding at all, whose understanding was very poor and whose hates overrode his good sense. And the faster they overrode it, why, the quicker he went down the slot.

Yes?

Male voice: There's one thing that hasn't been cleared up on this specific universe terminal: Do you use the entire nine-way bracket, nine-step bracket, on the specific terminal?

Yes.

Male voice: Oh, you do.

Sure.

Male voice: Thank you.

You don't have to. That's actually banging it around too much.

Male voice: Yeah. I use five.

Yeah, you've got a five-bracket that still works just fine. You can even get away with a three-bracket, you know?

Male voice: Okay.

It's what you can get away with, you know?

Male voice: I see.

If the fellow seems to be having difficulty with them, he's struggling with it and so forth, then is the time you pour on the coal. Then you say, "Well, we'll just run this nine ways and get it really cleaned up."

Take some guy whose father, for instance, sent him through school, whose father gave him all of his money, whose father stopped him at every turn, you know, so he could help him and so forth.

Male voice: How do you know?

And he's having a hell of a time. Yeah. Now, we run, "How could Father help you?" and he gets a brrrr — automatic. "How could you help Father?" and he goes into a total decline.

Well, right away we would say, "Father. Aha! Nine-way bracket, if you please. We'll beat this one to death." Get the idea?

Second male voice: Hm.

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet.

Female voice: If you ran Not-know Union Station on a recent Clear, what would you expect?

Oh, I'd expect that he would probably enjoy the novelty of it, and it would probably flatten rather rapidly.

Female voice: Okay.

You bet.

Male voice: A real fast comment on this Help thing. Apparently, comm lag by itself is not an indication of stickiness, this is something we came up with.

Interesting, isn't it?

Male voice: But one level of comm lag was definitely stickiness — there just were no ways around. And another level of comm lag was, out at the higher level, was looking at the individual saying what his goals were and whatnot, for sure, with a certainty there was a way to help increase knowingness of the individual. And it was apparently a fairly free needle there, although the comm lags were, some of them, fairly long.

Yeah.

Second male voice: And the — now — the preclear can tell what the needle's doing, too.

Yeah. Should be able to.

Yes?

Female voice: Would taking Dianazene help in making faster progress?

Would taking Dianazene make for faster progress — the answer is no. Dianazene has been found to slow down auditing, not speed it up.

Female voice: Oh. Thank you.

You bet.

Male voice: Dianazene and pregnancy?

Rather violent. Dianazene moves engrams up and down and around and about and so forth.

Female voice: How about just taking extra b1 ,something like that?

Well, if you're going to take B1 , you will have to take calcium and ascorbic acid with it. If you do not take those two with B1 , you won't have any bones after a while. And that the chemical industry has not found this out tells us that they're not as serious as they might be about what they're doing.

Female voice: Well, would it help to take those three?

For fifty-five minutes of a session, you get a faster, more alert run, any time you take some B1 , at the beginning of a session. Any time a preclear begins to have nightmares while he's being audited, he should be fed some B1 If you feed him some B1 ,at the rate of every 50 milligrams of B1 he must have a minimum of 20 to 25 grains of dicalcium phosphate and must have a minimum of 250 milligrams of ascorbic acid. He must have that. And if you give that in that proportion, his nightmares will cease and desist.

Female voice: That's been my problem . . .

Yeah, well . . .

Female voice: . . . in processing.

. . . you just take all you want of it. But of course that tells you that if you take — I'm not prescribing for you, I'm telling you the chemical reactions of this — one, if you take 100 milligrams of Bl ,you have something between 30 and 50 grains of dicalcium phosphate and somewhere around 500 milligrams of C. And that's getting to be a real horse pill.

You know about the fellow that was given the pill by the veterinarian that he was supposed to give the horse? And he couldn't get the horse to take the pill, so the veterinarian gave him a big tube. And he was supposed to put this tube in the horse's mouth and take the pill, and he was supposed to blow the pill into the horse's mouth. The fellow came back the next day, he was looking very ill; the veterinarian said, "Did you put the tube in his mouth?"

And he said, "Yes."

And he says, "Well, what happened?"

And he says, "The horse blew first."

On that horrible and corny joke, we will terminate this.

It's been very, very, very much of a privilege to talk to you and give you this series of lectures. I hope they've done you some good.

Thank you very much.