You never quite saw anybody as happy as I am to be home. Honest.

Over in England when I left they said, "You won't be able to get away from there if you go home. You'll leave, you'll stay in America." And the boys have been hinting around here — they've been hinting that it might be a good idea if I remained in America now. And that's all very well and I — they have been on their good behavior; they've done everything I have asked them to do; they've done a lot of things that I haven't asked them to do. They made a grand job out of this congress; they're — these boys night and day, about twenty-four hours a day — have been going around here for the last week getting this congress ready for you people and for us. And this is very, very touching — very touching. So, right here at the outset I will have to confess to being a very weak man. I — I can be swayed; I can be influenced; I'm not the strong character I should be. People's opinions and expressions, particularly from my dearest friends, do have an effect on me. And so I've just tossed in the sponge and I am going to stay.

Thank you very much. I seem to have detected there was some — one or two in the audience that wanted me to stay, too. So, thank you.

A great deal has happened in a year, a great deal. We are making progress at a rate which I have never before seen. It doesn't mean that there have been enormous numbers of changes. You can hardly call them "changes" when I'm dumping about three-quarters of it on you right here in the congress — thud for the first time really.

But during this last year we have been able to bring Scientology up and put some long pants on it, dress it up, bring it into a level of workability that it's never before even vaguely been able to approach. We have been working — the lot of us — with preclears, with cases, for six years now. And we've slaved away, we've ground away. Some of us have used a little Carborundum on the case, you know. Somebody else has whittled; somebody else has used a solvent of some sort to clean the spots off the case. We've gotten along, we've worked hard, we have striven — every one of us with very good intention — to do the very best we could for the cases, for the people on the various dynamics in order to achieve a higher ability and a better state for man.

The past six years have been a testing ground, a research area whereby we were getting together the tools necessary for a task. I feel ashamed of myself because it didn't happen in 51, it didn't happen in 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 — not until now, at the end of 56 here, toward the end, that I could honestly say … Now just — let's just kick out the optimism, let's just kick out the sales talks, let's just say, well, he had to keep people interested and we were doing more for man than anybody had ever done before. The difficulty on the original state of Clear came about mainly because the techniques used to produce one in 1947 were never put in anybody's hands. We had a special method of running engrams: You simply built the man's confidence in being able to handle them till he threw them all away and he was a Clear. And that happened in a great many cases, but it didn't happen in 50. People were grinding away hard and slow.

In 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 we were doing more for man individually, than man had ever done for man before, but that was not enough, that was not enough, nowhere near enough. It's the idea of sitting down and grinding away on a preclear, auditing him, making him do this and do that and bringing up his state of health to a level of being human, of being able to function, of being able to mote somehow or another, that wasn't enough. That wasn't what we were shooting for. It wasn't high enough!

All right. I've given you the best I knew. I've given you the best research and test reports that I could. I've kept things going forward one way or another. Sometimes tired, but never without hope. I knew that somewhere forward just as you did — there was coming into being, better and better processes, and there was coming into being, a time when we could process somebody above the level of merely being human or merely being well.

What this society needs is ability. Have you tried to hire anybody lately? Even the Irish agree — even the Irish agree that man could be more able. In fact they agree so thoroughly that when our office opened up a Personnel Efficiency Course in Dublin, the Irish — the Irish came in and said, "What are you fellows doing here?" This, I said, this is the American College of Personnel Efficiency."

And the Irish said, "Oh? Oh?" And they said, "Do we need that!" This seems to be man's opinion the world around. It's one thing on which man is fairly well agreed — that man could be more able.

But the devil of it is, you have to reduce his disabilities somehow and get them disposed of or get his attention out of them before you can actually begin to make him more able, and most of us have been involved in making his disabilities less troublesome simply in the hope that he would then extrovert and do better, and those are the results that we normally see.

But a great deal has happened in the past year; a great deal has happened!

Now, let's just lay aside the sales talk; let's just forget about — be charitable, forget about the nice things I've said about what Dianetics would do and what Scientology would do. Be kind. That is what you're supposed to do here, see? It's what you are supposed to do. You're supposed to be kind and charitable and forgive all — even Ron, you see.

And when preclears sat there and Ron said that this and that ought to do this and that for him, the phenomena was there — I think you will agree to that — the phenomena was there; the process did have a biteability; it did bring him up; there was — thing — things did happen. But you were never satisfied with the final result, were you? Let's speak honestly — not entirely, completely, uniformly, preclear to preclear satisfied with the final result.

You've seen a preclear here and a preclear there that — you could have done more for him. You just knew somehow that if you knew how, you could have done more for him than you did. Now, that doesn't mean that you didn't do plenty for him, but we're extremists! You did more for him than the witch doctors — than — well, the witch doctors … Just a minute, I'll think of some modern practice that is outside this classification of witch doctor. Well, the witch doctors couldn't have done as much as we've done by about half. The fact of the matter is that 22 percent of man gets well anyway. You come in and you give him a glass of water and you say, "Sir, if you will merely drink a glass of water every morning before breakfast, your symptoms of epiglosis will disappear." And they do — they do. This gives the entire field — it's not a field — something or other of medicine. Just a moment, I've been over in Great Britain. I've had to speak correctly all this time. The modern abattoir of medicine disrespects healing done by the mind — by means of the mind. They don't respect it, because they say, "Somebody comes in, I give him flour and water mixed up into a pill and he takes it and he gets well, and there's nothing in it, so therefore the mind does have an influence, so therefore mental healing has no validity or purpose or application!" I think you'll agree with me that that is the conclusion they take.

Audience: Yes.

I think you will agree with me.

Well, 22 percent of man get well no matter what you do for them. You make the sign of the Comanche on their forehead and they say, "Well, what do you know! Arm moves again." But that's only 22 percent.

How do you make any betterment of that figure? If we were able to bring it up to an average 30 percent, we would have bettered the results of any organization or school of healing or treatment or practice of the past; just 30 percent is all we would need in order to top it. What if we took it to 40? Well, Dianetics took it to 50 in 1950; on an average, 50 percent of the people who would consent with … Oh, what trust!

When I think of the way we used to audit! "The somatic strip will now go to . . . When I snap my fingers the first phrase of the engram will occur." Curl up in a ball, on the floor — the birth sequence. "Oh, you want to say something? Well you're just avoiding, shut up! Get into valence."

The poor guy gets three feet back of his head, you know, and he says, "Wheee!" You know, "What do you know, I'm not a body." And he says, "You know, I'm looking at this from a distance."

And the auditor says, "Get back into valence!" The things we didn't know have filled the remaining books since. Very, very wonderful, but we pushed it up to 50 percent. And just about 50 percent of the cases couldn't run engrams. If we could get a case to run engrams smoothly and so forth, we could generally in oh, a few hours of — I mean, a few hours. for us at that time — five, six hundred hours — get him over his asthma or something of the sort. It was pretty successful — pretty successful by and large, and it was an awful lot of fun. Could you produce an effect upon people — wow!

I remember one time there was an attorney out in California, down in Palm Springs, and he had heard something about Dianetics — making such a horrible commotion up in Los Angeles — and he says, "What is this thing, Dianetics?" He says, you know, "What is this thing?"

And I said, "Oh, it's a way of handling the mind."

And he said, "Well — uh — what — uh — what good's that?" You know, standard reaction.

So I said, "Well, supposing you could say a magic phrase, snap your fingers, and a witness on the witness stand that you didn't want to testify, would curl up in a ball and fall out of the chair on the floor?"

"Oh," he says, "that would be useful."

Now, you don't have to believe this, but I had witnesses. So I said, "The somatic strip will return to three months after conception. The first phrase of the engram will occur." It's an absolute fact that the somatic strip will obey you much better than it obeys the preclear. What fantastic things we did; how much we learned.

And time went on and we pulled out of that and recognized some things that were not very palatable to people. But I must confess to you that I have never consulted palatability in terms of data. If I saw it, I said so. If I noted it happened, I didn't consult the Ladies' Aid Society as to the publishability of the material. I didn't consult anybody. I simply published the material, that's that. If I found a new way and a better way of doing something, I published the material.

And exteriorization came along and a very large percentage of the Dianeticists didn't. We know why since: they can't look at a static. It hurts them. They can't look at a thin spot in space up here and stay comfortable in the midriff; it's too upsetting to them. It's just a mechanical fact — it's too bad. We have a process today that they could be run on for five, ten minutes — they'd be able to look at a static and they would have come right along with us, but this is a long time since. They're coming back. I am trying to get in touch with most of them as a matter of fact, saying, "Hey, guys, come over here. There's an indoctrination course running in there. How about you getting a couple of boilerplate patches on your engram bank and square it around and put you back in the running?"

Well, an astonishing number of things have happened. And during the last six months we find ourselves completely and entirely back in Dianetics, running engrams at a rate of speed you never dreamed of, and having to run them to really clean up a case well. We find ourselves back where we came in. All of the phenomena, all of the "curl up in the ball and fall on the floor," the screamer, the sperm sequence, those horrible things that came up and actually effectively in the long run completely blew up the Foundation in Elizabeth that couldn't agree on them. Preclears kept lying down on the couch and presenting past deaths and the board there tried to make it illegal to run one. It's very, very bad to — I know, to have something that's unacceptable — hasn't been acceptable to most people; it's been known about for a long time but hasn't been acceptable.

In the engram, a moment of pain and unconsciousness contained in a mental image picture containing an instant of exteriorization — pain, unconsciousness, exteriorization — is found to be the engram we were looking for, all up and down the track. And we have a way to run it that doesn't run it very directly, but simply blows it out of existence. We have a way now of getting a "case computation" — remember that word, sound familiar? The service facsimile — remember that? The main engram on the track and the psycho-somatic problems as they exist in present time, abolished with maybe fifteen hours of running. Twenty-five, thirty-five hours of running probably would straighten out a lifetime, but I don't have exact data on how long it takes to clean up seventy-six trillion years. But it's less time than you think.

Why I use this "seventy-six trillion years" — you old-timers remember that — Time magazine one time devoted a whole page to ribbing me. A year later they were saying that I had discovered it. Two years from now they will probably be saying they've always been my friend.

But here we have — here we have an incredible piece of news and not one of you have taken it in yet. We don't have to, maybe. The processes we have in Scientology are sufficiently good that they handle it in some other fashion, but the problem of the thetan is the problem of the mind; the problem of beingness, the problem of the spirit, is his problem with the mind. Unless we solve that very directly, we can't make fast progress. But we're making that progress. I'll get it through to you in a minute: you're back in Dianetics! There's a lot of old Dianeticists sitting there. And some of you new Scientologists, and some of you guests that were patient enough, if with some misgivings, to come along with your overenthusiastic friend — you want to know what Dianetics is. You came to hear about Scientology.

Well, Scientology is a science which even includes Dianetics! No, Scientology is a study of the construction of universes and the role played in them by a spiritual being; the background of masses, spaces, energy, thought and its relative positions person to person, dynamic to dynamic. It is a very broad technical subject.

Dianetics was a pretty — pretty good subject. It went up to the fourth dynamic and it handled a thing called a mental image picture, called an engram, and these mental image pictures were discovered to be housed, kept, maintained, stowed, hidden, stashed, in a reactive mind which was over thisa-way — on some preclears that-a-way. On other preclears it was a little electric train that went across with a word in each car. Dianetics believed — and very, very agreeably — that there was such a thing as the analytical mind and the reactive mind. And the analytical mind was what you were consciously thinking with and doing; thinkingness turning into doingness. And most of that was done by the analytical mind.

But a great many hidden responses — automaticities we called them later — were hidden in a mind called the reactive mind which operated on a stimulus-response basis. Somebody says "cat," the mind said "cat." Somebody says "mother," the mind said "meowww!" We tried to love our neighbors and some-thing said "hate." You say, "Where did that come from?" You say, "I love my neighbors." Something said, "You know you hate your neighbors." Circuitry. Fellows had little — little things that sat up here and every time they said something, why, the little circuit said, "You boob." You know, all these little gimmicks and gadgets talked about in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and succeeding publications and the tapes of that period all comprised Dianetics.

Now, there was one item in Dianetics which was not very well looked over. We didn't look over this particularly. There was very little said about this. I knew it existed. I wasn't particularly interested in it since I didn't understand what I was looking at on a lower level, and I was not prone to leap over large hurdles and grab at material I didn't know about, when I didn't know what the hurdle was, you know. In other words, I am not, you might say, a standard issue research man that — that you know he — he says, "Well, undoubtedly Professor Umph knows about that. We'll go over here. This is more interesting over here. Old Jones probably knows about that …" And these "probably knows" finally accumulate into a science. And then somebody examines all this hash that is an alleged science and finds out it all boils down to "probably knows" without saying what. Well, that was the state of affairs of the mind when Dianetics came on the scene.

But there was this little thing called an "awareness of awareness unit." The unit that was aware of being aware. It wasn't even discussed very much. But that "horrible little germ" came along and corrupted and ruined the whole science.

I remember an old — an old auditor in Elizabeth. He and I were having a — having a very, very good time talking about the probabilities of this and that and why decay came about if survival was the only thing things did. And by the way, that's true, you know, apparency is — of decay is all the decay there is. Thetans go on forever. Anyway, we were talking about this and we went along very nicely and very smoothly, trying to find out why things caved in if their total ambition was to be destroyed. So, we decided — we decided — I advanced this theory and said — said, "All things" — now this was just a hypothesis, you know, not a real theory — "all things might be said to carry with them the germs of their own destruction." That was a possibility — why things became ill. They seem to have to have along with them each one a germ of its own destruction.

Governments construct themselves perfectly except for a little flaw over here, and one day the flaw suddenly becomes a crack and the crack suddenly becomes a chasm and the government suddenly becomes a hole in the ground. So, advanced this interesting hypothesis. We kicked this around for some time. We abandoned it as untenable. Untenable hypothesis. Ha! And all the time, in the back of Modern Science of Mental Health, it said there is an awareness of awareness unit. And that was the germ that destroyed, apparently, Dianetics. Do you see that?

We kept talking about mental image pictures, the reactive mind, the somatic mind, the analytical mind, how man thought, how he combined pictures, emotions, perceptions, so that these things would reapply themselves to his body and he could do this and he could do that with them and he could do something else with them. And we never said what was looking at them! Come on you old Dianeticists, think about that. That's true, isn't it? We never said who was looking at them! We simply said you. Didn't we?

Audience: Yes.

And the engrams might be on cells and get blown up and they might be here and they might do there, but they undoubtedly were the basic cause of aberrated conduct. We can prove this. You — don't let an old Dianeticist near you if you are a new Scientologist to run an engram. You want to look at a real engram, you say. You know, what is all this stuff: mother, sex? The news-papers used to say pornography. What is all this stuff? Prenatal chains .. . Well, what is this stuff here? Goes on and on. A fellow can remember every-thing that happens to him at all times, including everything that occurs, even in the depths of an operation. Boom! That's too uncomfortable!

And I'm sure — I'm sure that you as a new Scientologist would be very wise, educationally, to calmly lie down on a couch. That, by the way was the sign of the coffin case. He would come in to get audited and lie there, stiff, stark, flat out on the couch, pulse — clammy. We would say, "How are you getting along?"

"Fine."

You'd run engram after engram after engram. We had a lot of these cases along and several of them were on the board at Elizabeth that voted not to research any past deaths. They were in them, see.

In other words, a person gets stuck in one of these engrams and then heis the pictures of the engrams; then he does the things the engram perceptionsays. It's like looking at a big piece of motion picture film, you know. And youas a modern Scientologist say, "Well, I think I ought to lie down and let thisold Dianeticist run an engram," see. Dianeticists are horrible people to restrain.The Dianeticist is saying, "Ha-ha-ha! The somatic strip will — ha-ha — return to the incident necessary to resolve your case." It used to, too. Anyhow, whether you could run it or not or hold the preclear in it while he screamed dismally was quite something else.

But anyway, preclears would blow up, roll on the floor, scream, lie there and have nothing happen at all and then for the next four days have measles, except no germs were present. All kinds of wild manifestations would occur.

I ran one time — thinking of the adventures of Dianetics — I ran a preclear one time for — two preclears as a matter of fact — for the benefit of a couple of medicos who slithered into the scene. I was foolish in those days; I thought they were interested.

And I put the preclears down on the couch and I was running an incident and — out of one of them and he started to writhe and look pale and he started to get sort of flushed looking, and the medico says, "What's wrong with him?"

And I said, "No, nothing, nothing. He's just going through an old illness." And the medico said, "He's doing what?"

"Well, he's running a mental image picture — a picture which is contained in his reactive mind which has the power of reimposing on the body every-thing that the body had experienced while the incident was taking place. And of course, it has in it fever and chills and perspiration and sensations. It has the various tactile of beds and tea cups or soup bowls or anything else he was doing at that time. And he feels these things and that puts the picture back in action. Or an auditor audits him and puts the picture back in action and runs it out, and of course, he reexperiences all these things all over again."

Now, they know all about reexperiencing — they have vast textbooks with people — they have known about it for years. They could make people reexperience everything. They don't know what they are talking about. The individual actually can be put right straight back through the incident — bing-bing-bing-bing-bing, just as nice as you please! They don't, you know, get the traumatic effect, "Well, I remember when I was a little boy and a puppy ran over me and this has been very, very bad because it had sexual connotations; I've never been the same since."

"Oh, well, Mr. Jones, we now have the most significant incident in your life. We'll spend the next four years analyzing it." Ha-ha! How careful those people were being. Maybe they instinctively felt that maybe somebody would walk in the door one day and say, "The somatic strip . . ." Because that isn't what made his life aberrated; it was pain and unconsciousness and he was still carrying the picture around with him and it was still capable and imposing all its force and ferocity upon his body, his mind and his beingness.

And in order to run one of those things out, it practically took one of these big jackhammers — out of some cases. You'd erase and erase. You know this idea that you recount an incident enough times — this is not necessarily new, you see — you recount something a lot of times, why, it'll worry you less. That was about as much as society knew about this sort of thing. Actually, the guy has to go back on the track to the moment; he has to progress completely through the entire experience from one end to the other; he has to come back to the beginning and reexperience the whole thing all the way through again from one end to the other. He has to go back to the beginning again and reexperience the whole thing and all of a sudden the unknown points start coming up. And it isn't contained in figure-figure-figure, think-think-think; it's contained in hurt-hurt-hurt, gag-gag-gag, bluh-blooh-bluh! Society didn't have enough nerve to find this one out; that's all it is!

I'm not exaggerating. I'm — am I, old-timers? Am I exaggerating?

Audience: No!

Wild business!

So — so anyway, an individual lying there flush, the medico says, "You know, he looks like he's getting sick. Looks like he's coming down with something." Quick! Out with the thermometer. "Do you mind if I take his temperature?" Right in the middle of an auditing session. I've got the fellow being scolded by Father while he's lying there with a temperature of 106 or something like this, you know. The doctor says, "I should take his temperature. You know I've got to stop this one way or the other." And he muscled me aside.

I decided, well, I might as well get the preclear's temperature taken. I've never done this. I know he's got a fever. The doctor puts it in. Waited. "103! My God!" he said, "This man has got to get to bed! I can't permit this by my medical knowledge, authority and mission to the AMA to permit this session to go on any further. So, you get him up to bed."

And I said, "And so, we get you over in the chair." Ptock! And I said, "Now, let's go back to the beginning of the incident again. That bother you, that monkey business?" "No! No! No! Let's go back to the incident."

The doctor's friend was coming up to come to the defense of his colleague because he's obviously in the hands of madmen — and he was going to say, "You are certainly not going to do anything more, are you?"

And I said, "I don't know about me, but you're not. You're going to sit still." And they sat there looking, because they knew a sick man was having something bad done to him.

And I finished off the engram, wiped it out, brought the preclear up to present time. Put the other one down, ran the engram and all of a sudden he looked flushed!

The medico said, "Look! You realize, don't you, that you can be arrested for impersonating an angel of mercy like myself."

"Oh," I said, "you want to take his temperature?" So, I let him take his temperature. I picked him up and put him back in the chair. Ptock! Erased it; brought him up to present time. They are both feeling pretty good, both preclears, "Ha! I feel a lot better." Measles was off the case, see. They felt a lot better. They felt pretty good about the whole thing.

Medico sat back there, "Something wrong with these people; they look normal." He took his thermometer — 103. And he said, "George, let's go home." Well, if you could shoot somebody's temperature to 103 and bring it back to normal again in a half an hour, you are not practicing medicine, I've always contended.

So, anyway, we slaved along. We got along well in old Dianetics. We had a lot of fun and we completely neglected this horrible thing that suddenly made an appearance in the middle of 1952. And Hubbard was fool enough to start talking about it — a thetan. He discovered a spirit — hallucinatory, of course!

But a spirit had been discovered. Spirits had been discovered. Hubbard, with his usual optimism, said you could discover them in everybody.

And so, what with a lot of legal maneuvers and other things, it really was true that we were in a different field and it was also true that Dianetics was sort of — sad but true — it was a sort of a dead issue at the moment. We were interested in spirits, following them around, wondering how many horse-power they develop, trying to measure their capacitance, resistance. We had them on E-Meters. Remember E-Meters — Volney Mathison — got so they were this big and then they were this big. And he had eighteen settings on the front of them and suddenly a little light would flash and that told you what time it was to go to lunch. We had them on oscilloscopes and bacilloscopes and everything else, trying to measure them and figure out exactly what this was all about.

A fellow out in California one night showed up — I was in Phoenix, had a house out in the desert. It's all been built up since but it was a nice house then — coyotes mourned quietly every night. I like coyotes mourning every night, they sort of add to the — you know, the scene. They add to the flavor of things when you're researching spirits. And the boy came at about — come to think about it, there had been a little congress over there, a little meeting and he came and he sat down — well, he knocked on the door and he said, "Ron," he said, "I've got something hot and I want to see you."

Now, I've heard this before. I hear this regularly. And I never say, "No, don't tell me." I — yeah, I will say factually, "We've had that for a little while," or I will say, "That is darned interesting, I will look into it." You know, it's a communication line; I really am there — I mean — solidly hit me. I mean, when you write me a letter it does arrive here. I might not answer it at any length, but I normally get a reply back one way or the other.

And I said — however, that night since we just had a big meeting and I was tired, I said, "No." And Evans knocks again. I say, "No, Evans." I say, "Go away, please. I am tired and exhausted."

He goes out and he lies down in the front yard on the couch — couple of sun couches out there, sitting in the middle of the desert. He lies down. Moon — sun goes down — moon comes up; he's still there. Somebody stuck his head out and said, "Evans, why don't you go home. Ron isn't going to see you."

And he said, "I've got to see him. I've got to see him."

So, finally after the TV programs were all over and I had wakened, I happened to be passing by the window and I looked out in the front yard, in the bright moonlight, and here was Evans Farber still lying there looking up at the moon philosophically. And I said, "Why, that boy will catch his death of moonbeams or something. I'd better go out."

So I said, "Evans," I said, "this is cruel of you. I have just been up about 48, 80 hours or something and why can't you see me about this some other time?" And he said, "It's important, Ron, it really is." He says, "I can exteriorize thetans at will that you've been talking about." We'd been looking for a process that would; we knew it theoretically; we'd run into the phenomenon; we'd tried to do something with it. Not very much had occurred and he turns up and he says he can exteriorize them by an auditing command. Well, I said, "Evans, that's — that's interesting, but …"

He had some kind of a theory behind it and quoted it out of Scientology 8-80 and told me exactly how it worked — that something or other happened, or there was a little preadvance release of the material. And he had read it over and he said, "All you have to say to them is 'Try not to be three feet back of your head.' "

I said, "Is that so?"

And he said, "Yeah, look," he says, he puts me down in the chair and he steps back and he says, "try not to be three feet back of your head." And I go sphewwww! And I haven't been able to get back in since.

So, a few months later we were all ghosts! That technique is not advised since it has a tendency to wear out and thetans flip back in and all sorts of things happen, but it was the first direct exteriorization technique. A little later on we found out you could get about 50 percent of the people you walk up to in the street and you just look at them, get their attention, you know, "Be three feet back of your head." And they go sphewwww! "Well, what do you know! What was I doing in there!" You know, that kind of a reaction. Very amazing.

Here's a phenomenon that existed, that was right there waiting to be discovered for a very, very long time, nothing known about it. Real — talked about — I mean, old-time religion talked about a soul and a spirit and how you had to be good and you would do this and that. They talked about all the various odds and ends about it, but nobody gave its dimensions, capacitance, inductance and resistance. You got the idea? In other words, we didn't have an accurate scientific description so that no phenomena could be produced really as a result of the knowledge that man was a spirit. So, people could doubt it, people could say, "Well, man isn't a spirit — and man is and man isn't."

Well, this is all ancient history to a lot of you. It's all ancient history. It's interesting though, but the germ of the destruction of Dianetics was a thetan: launched, theorized, calculated and everything else. The first one launched — Mark 1-type carrier — in Phoenix, Arizona, by — or no, in Los Angeles, really, earlier by Evans Farber in 1952 — launched. We have been launching them ever since from time to time.

As a matter of fact, now it's very difficult to keep from launching some-body. If we are very careful and break all the rules, we can keep somebody in his head, but otherwise it's pretty difficult. He has to be really poorly audited.

But we advanced the field of the mind — and my discoveries that succeeded that and the other material which followed it — well we also advanced, entered and to a very marked degree described and resolved the sphere of religion. Man had only had that name for it previously and we were in the interesting position of not being religious and being in the possession of all the materials that religion ought to have, which is a very bad position to be in.

If you know that being holy has nothing to do with being Clear, it's a very hard thing for you to understand why you should be holy — a lot of complexities of this character.

In other words, the different oddities, materials, the conflicts — we'd launched information man was not in possession of and that information was very difficult to communicate. To some degree we went out of communication — maybe it was a good thing.

The years went along. We developed more material. We got more certain. We know today an awful lot of things — an awful lot of things about this subject. We have the most — probably the only complete records of a complete research on anything, probably, just regardless of what, that has ever been undertaken. We've got our complete records. We have gone all the way along the line. We followed along carefully with books and tapes and other equipment, other recordings of the work that's been done — very voluminous material.

All of the material's gone on in London and work's gone on. I've been in London and Camden and Phoenix and London and it's — Washington in between — more and more and more information, more and more information, more and more information, more and more information. Well, you finally get so you know enough about this. You do! I mean, you finally get so you know enough about it. Say, "The devil with it." That is probably why they invented hell. They got tired of the whole thing about the human soul, you know, and they invented hell just to have someplace where they could threaten to send it if they got tired of playing with it.

And what do you know! What do you know. Just a very short time ago, a very short time ago, found myself walking along minding my own business and all of a sudden I said, "The unit of awareness of the mind is looking at a facsimile, a mental image picture, and usually looks at it in preference to looking at the physical universe directly. The basic game of a spirit is: him-self not capable really of being solid — to then put up solids to look at because they can't be unsolid and he can't be solid, so there isn't any complete communication possible. So we have a basic game going on and it must be that the thetan who had gone down scale can't tolerate solids."

And I went back home and sat down at a desk to make a couple of research notes. I said, "Well — " you know I was writing along, a couple of research notes — "the one solid that he does not care to make solid anymore would be a mental image picture containing pain, unconsciousness and loss by exteriorization. Oh no, we're back in Dianetics!" And so we are.

Actually, just in the last few weeks I managed to bring pretty close to a level of perfection, methods of handling the reactive mind: to handle all of the reactive mind, to ungroup the track and put the whole thing back together again — paying no attention to phrases, just by using solids in particular ways — stretch the track out, pat it in place and achieve greater results than we have ever achieved before in Dianetics and working with bodies, and quite incidentally working with the mind and the physical universe and the principles involved with solids. There's several sets of principles which we probably won't even go into this congress. But these principles lead us back to the fact that we have to know Dianetics. If we hadn't known Dianetics, we never would have discovered the rest of it. And having discovered the rest of it; we find ourselves totally, totally beaten, pounded, hammered, herded, corralled, nailed down into running Dianetics again.

So the "Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man," which is the title of this lecture, include first and foremost a good grip of Dianetics. And if you were able to handle Dianetics once upon a time, you will say, "Gee-whiz, why didn't we know how fast we could make a bank run!" We used to scan them, and we used to do this, and we used to do that.

Now, I'll give some of you old-timers — I'm not going to leave you in mystery on the subject. You just pick an arbitrary point in the middle of the preclear's age and you have him find an incident which is later than that time and have him look at it. And when you decide that it's not another engram — you see, you don't run the engram, you just pick an arbitrary point, an engram or not in the middle of the person's life — and you tell him to get a picture later than that moment. And when you discover that that picture is not a mental image picture that contains pain, you tell him, see, "Okay." You say, "Make it more solid," so he .. .

You say, "That's fine. That's fine. Now, can you find one earlier than this incident" — old engram, old tonsillectomy, automobile accident or something or just an arbitrary age in the middle of life and you say, "What is it?" And you discover as the auditor that he isn't really looking at something that contains physical pain. Because if you let him make it solid while it contained physical pain, why, you'd get the pain and you'd have to handle that engram and you'd be handling another part of the track, you see. And you say, "All right, make it more solid — just the picture."

So the fellow . . . "Yes. Yes. Yes. It's more solid."

And you say, "That's fine. Now, find an incident later than the arbitrary incident of(age)." Determine what it is. Don't let him get out of control, you see, because he's liable to start making it solid the second he finds it and you don't let him do that because you'll just stick him. And you say, "What is it?"

And, "Oh," he says, "it's my mother throwing chickpeas to the chickens," or something like that.

And you say, "That's fine. That's fine. Make it more solid."

He does. And you go earlier and make it more solid. And he does. And you go later and make it more solid. You go earlier and make it more solid and you go — and earlier and later and earlier. And all of a sudden service facsimile and the rest of the material he — you've been looking for in this case for a long time — life computation and all that sort of thing — he suddenly gives it to you — nothing much to it. And then you — earlier and solid, and earlier and solid and all of a sudden, "Well," he says, "I'm — got a picture here of me lying here dead."

"Earlier — " you say, "well, can't you get one a little earlier than that?"

"Oh, yes, got one of me here at a ball, looking at a — at the queen."

And you say, "That's fine. Make it more solid. That's good. Now, go later. Later. All right. Can you get one later than the arbitrary age — middle of life time?" Never change that age, by the way, never change it. He comes up with another juicy incident, just let him have it. And make it more solid. Earlier, make it more solid. Later, make it more solid. Earlier, make it more solid. Later, make it more solid. Ten thousand years ago, fifteen thousand years ago. Twenty thousand years ago.

"Oh, you've got a — somebody is standing there ready to clout you with a stone ax. Oh. Well, can't you get an earlier one than that?"

"Yes, I can. I've got this woman, dragging her by the hair over the rocks." "Good!" You say, "Make it more solid."

Well, that's the way you run it; that's the way you run it and that's what Dianetics has come down to. The most effective single process that we know today, a very workable one; and during the break maybe you'd like to try it on your friends.

So, here we are — we find ourselves back in Dianetics because we're in Scientology. So, we'll just have to get ambivalent and put up with it all. I just wanted to start this congress out with something that you could talk about, because we haven't got much time to really go into these little details like having completely solved Dianetics.

I'm awfully glad you're here. We are going to take a short break and then I'm going to come back and it says I have to talk about children. And maybe I will and maybe I won't. Who knows? There might be — even be some-thing to say about them. I'll try to find my notes in the interim! But if I can't I'll have to do something else.

So, I will see you in about fifteen minutes.