Subject: FZ Bible - PDC Final 16 Lectures 02/18
Date: 3 Feb 2000 10:09:01 -0000
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (FZBA Scandinavia)
Organization: FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

PHILADELPHIA DOCTORATE COURSE, FINAL 16 LECTURES
- PART 02 OF 18

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

===================================================

YOUR OWN CASE
TO YOU, THE STUDENT

Philadelphia Doctorate Course
18 December 1957

[Start of Lecture]

This is the last lecture of the Philadelphia lecture series, and
the name of this lecture is "Your Own Case." And this is
addressed to you, the student, not to your preclears.

You as a student are, we all know, a difficult case. And the
reason you are difficult is we decided and agreed upon a long
time ago in Dianetics that you were a difficult case because you
knew all the answers yourself. And therefore no auditor could
have any real altitude with you, and you knew all the ways to
dodge.

Another thing, a fellow works it in this way sometimes when he
gets rather bad off, and he said, "The only reason it is working
upon me is because I have heard all about it. And I have agreed
that it works, so it's working on me. And then I don't know
whether it's working on me or not, and I don't know whether I'm
any better or not, and I don't know... and I don't know, and..."
The next thing you know, he's sitting right there on the Chart of
Attitudes, "I don't know." What do you know! Apathy!

Now, the way to get over this is to take the responsibility
through these next periods of lecture review, when you're hearing
these tapes and having seminars; you as an individual take the
responsibility for the fact that your fellow student knows what
he is doing, because not only you, but the fate of what you're
interesting in, are in his hands.

You perhaps can be more or less sure what you're going to do with
it, but can you be sure that he knows what he is doing with it?
Let me inject that insidious question. Can you be completely
competent yourself, and yet be the only competent auditor in your
immediate area?

You might think that this is desirable from a standpoint of
economics, you might think it's desirable in numbers of ways;
there's reverse vectors on this, and your best intention
sometimes might go awry. But, let me ask a not insulting
question: Can you be absolutely sure of his competence? Because
till you can feel some confidence in his competence, you're not a
group, and you won't have any security about being audited.

If you think there's one person in this class who will never
become a competent auditor, then you have not reached an optimum,
and you have not made very sure that that auditor knows what he's
doing. That sounds like that would introduce a lot of randomity.
But that won't introduce any randomity. What'll introduce
randomity is this: Trying to prove that you know and that he
doesn't.

That's the way Homo sapiens goes about it, and look where he is.
Try to prove that you know and he doesn't. No, no. You're not
interested in proving that you know. You're just interested in
making sure he does.

You take that sort of an attitude, you won't calmly let something
go by the boards. There isn't any reason why you should let
anything go by the boards. There isn't any reason why you or
three or four of you shouldn't take that auditor of which you're
not secure in his knowledge, and back him up against a corner and
make darn sure that he is. Of course you're making the old deal
that used to go on on the track a lot of the time, is on the
basis of "Prove it! You've got to prove that you know." Proving
that one knows is quite aberrative -- unless it applies to
procedures which can be articulated with the ease that these
procedures can be articulated.

In order to get a block and tackle to work, one must know how to
rig one. And in order to get a preclear up the scale, one must
know the fundamentals of auditing so thoroughly that it becomes a
completely automatic proposition, in a complete scale of
knowingness with no automaticity.

You either know data, or you don't. There isn't any halfway point
about it. You either know what a cycle of action is or you don't,
because the answers which have been dug up here are not vague
answers. They -- not talking about me, I'm just talking about
this subject line. They're not vague answers. And if there's a
vagueness which exists, it was either a vagueness of
communication -- because a communication, to be a full
communication, has to be received -- or you're fighting something
that would make it seem nonsurvival to you to know that datum.

In either one of these two lines then an auditor could fail. But
he could mostly fail if he did not have confidence in his
auditors. Not one man, not one girl, in this room but has had the
rather sorry experience of being part of a team of Homo sapiens.
College. High school. Your gang, and everything was going along
fine, until all of a sudden you found out one day one -- somebody
was cutting your throat. Or you wore the old school tie, and you
found out that the moment you were no longer in the old school,
there wasn't any team anymore.

You've gone through a continuous process of falling away from
teams of various sorts or another, or seeing them break up,
seeing groups not reaching their goals. And it is no wonder that
you would feel a disgust for groups of Homo sapiens. But it would
be every piece of curiosity in the world if you began to develop
one as a group of auditors who have in your hands all the skills
to come up the tone scale and to be and to make good teammates.

You know, it can be done all by yourself and by nobody else, by
the way. You don't need any help. And that, I know, is the best
reason why you should have some teammates you can trust. Coming
up all the way up the line, however, necessitates that at no time
you will ever stumble or fall in any way whatsoever. That
precludes that fact: You must not stumble or fall -- anywhere.
You must get up the line by your own bootstraps and remain stable
there, and then never one day blunder into a theta trap or get
into a perihelion around something or other that has an undue
field, and you can't quite manage it and you get rattled -
something or other.

No, no, there's no great danger waiting on it. But there is this:
If you were perfectly confident in your own mind that you can
progress and do the entire job of the reclamation of earth, or
the reclamation of yourself -- it doesn't matter much which -- if
you are perfectly confident that you are competent to do that,
then you can. There isn't any doubt about that. One man can do
this whole job. Any one of you could do this job. I could do this
job. Doesn't have to be passed on. There's no pressing necessity
that it happens that way.

But there's two factors that enter in: one, it's more fun when
one has fellow members of the group trying to accomplish a common
goal; and two, there's a lot more certainty in it -- a lot more
certainty.

Now, when you look over this situation you'll find out that a lot
of group activities are quite limp. One of the group activities
that's most limp is trying to group audit with mock-ups. It's bad
because the variation from preclear to preclear is bad, and some
guy there is going to be coming invalidated or upset. He's
invalidated by your commands because he can't accomplish them.
Group auditing is kind of weak. Individual auditing isn't.

There are other group activities. There are group political
activities. Other activities are kind of weak. And a group is as
weak as the individual finds a scarcity and finds he must have,
or must not have. That's the weakness of a group. Havingness.
Spoils the time duration of the group, because the time duration
of the group cannot be made to depend upon MEST. It must depend
upon the top of the scale. And that of course has no great time
duration. It doesn't have much havingness.

A group can own a great deal, so long as the individual members
of that group, here and there through the group, do not have as
their sole and only goal, pronoun, capital I alone must have; I
want the power of the group, I want this, I want that. You have
to feel that way, you see, if you haven't got confidence in the
rest of the group. If you can't have confidence in the competence
of your fellow auditors, then you have the necessity of taking
the job on your own back.

So it's to every single, slightest good end in yourself to make
sure that the members of your group are competent, that they are
able, and that they are high enough up the tone scale so they do
not have to have, so they cannot and do not run into that
horrible cul-de-sac "I am the only one who must be," and they're
the only one who can control. The only place where that condition
of mind exists is above the middle of the band.

A group on earth is on a decrease spiral -- Homo sapiens -- on a
decrease end of the spiral. They seldom increase any. And you
want to go up and run the spiral backwards up into the increase
band. And if you want to do that, then don't get somebody nailing
down everything in sight, and crosscurrents, and putting out bad
information; because if they bring you bad information, they'll
take bad information away about you. Believe me, believe me, it's
true.

My grandma had a statement like that. She used to say, "If a dog
will bring a bone, he'll take one away."

If people are easily stampeded, or people are easily upset about
this and that, they aren't just (quote) "basically weak" and
therefore to be abandoned at the nearest crossroads. Their case
is in a hell of a condition, and that's about all you can say
about it.

Now, there isn't an auditor here, there isn't one here, that
could not become sufficiently competent, aesthetically,
rationally, to do the highest level of job that can be done in
these United States. There isn't one who couldn't do that. And
the only reason that couldn't happen is if the other members of
that group did not make absolutely sure about it. It could happen
that people of this group could fall short of that goal. And the
only way they can fall short of it is if the other members of
this group didn't make sure he could. So then that tells you that
each member of the group could, if he makes sure that anybody in
the group could, and makes it his concern that the rest of the
group can.

It's all very well to stand as little island universes. A single
candle in the middle of a huge, huge room can be an artistic
thing, but there's also an awful lot of dark in that room too.
And that room looked pretty good if there were half a hundred
candles in it. Look a lot better if there were half a thousand.
Up to about a certain level, it becomes too many candles,
aesthetically. It does. And there isn't any reason why this
subject has to be passed on and on, and people trained and
trained and trained in this subject until we have hundreds of
millions of auditors.

We don't even vaguely want hundreds of millions of auditors. How
many universes do you want to control simultaneously, for
heaven's sakes? What kind of a thirst would this be? Probably
there is a natural tolerance level for this much action in the
field of knowledge, in terms of numbers of people applying same.
I'm afraid that is the case. It doesn't mean that there's the
sheep and the goats; it just means that you push a certain
balance forward and it'll hit it after a while.

And what is it? A guy per planet? A guy per town? What is it?
It'll hit, somewhere along the line. And it's got a chance of
doing that only if you become responsible for the group, because
it can't be a group unless every member in that group is
responsible for the whole group.

Somebody comes around to you, and they say, "You know, there's an
auditor that down the street -- and so forth. I understand that
class so-and-so, Scientology, and you understand, and -- and --
class..."You see, you've got a wide-open field. You're not up
against Dianeticists. There are a lot of Dianetic auditors around.
You're not being rated as Dianetic auditors; you're being rated as
Scientologists. They're something else. I don't care how snide
anybody gets, I don't care how snide I get when I drape a flag to
the effect that it doesn't work.

The point is that you're not into that level of competition. You
couldn't be into any level of competition at all, because there
is no competition. There is no end of cannon fodder for your
auditing phrases -- no end of it -- any more than there's an end
of mock-ups. But there is this, there is this: There's somebody
coming to you and saying, "That Scientologist down the street,
so-and-so and such and such, did this and did that"; and such a
thing as you having a pretty good idea maybe that Scientologist
did. Beautiful girl, quiet auditing room, nobody else there --
maybe he did. I don't advise you to go against every mores and
that sort of thing, and support such a horribly terrible story as
that might have some slight grain of truth. All I ask you to do
is to look at this preclear and say, "You happen to be talking
about a member of my class." Boy, do they get propitiative in a
hurry. They'll probably give you an extra five!

That's right. It's bad medicine. Because the greatest of
degradation is brought about by this mechanism: You get a member
of the group to degrade himself by going against the remainder of
the group. And then that degrades the whole group, and therefore
the group is shattered. So regardless of the irrationality, and
regardless of the fact that you have ample precedent for not
supporting anybody in the group, go ahead and support them.
That's all there is to it, I mean it's very simple. You don't
have to have a precedent, an overt act-motivator combination. You
don't have to find out that there's a fellow who was a part of
your class and was a friend of yours, and was that -- part of
that group, that is saying this and saying that and doing this
and doing that, and that it's all wrong. You've found that out;
yes, he was, he was doing that; yes, he is doing that right this
minute, and somebody comes along and says to you, "And you're no
good 'cause you're..." so on and so on and so on. I mean, what
they're really saying is "You're no good," and it -- when they
say so-and-so.

And you say, "Well, that's up to him. That's up to him. But at
the same time, I think it's perfectly all right."

They say, "Why, you degraded being! How could you possibly think
such a thing?"

"I don't know. Maybe it's because I have a right to think that
too. And maybe it's because you don't have any right to think
anything about it at all. So the fellow hung up advertising signs
twenty feet high, all along the side of that building. Well, I
might think it's wrong, but you haven't got any right to think
it's wrong."

Oh, gee! Terrible approaches.

I'm not trying to ask you to do anything that you would not do of
your own determinism. I'm just trying to point out to you that as
you float along on an island universe basis, detached by Lord
knows how many light-years one from another, that it can be a
long track and a dark room, because there is our first
consideration -- the case. Your case.

And you know, it's a shockingly low number here in terms of
results, and I know you haven't had much time. But do you know
how long it takes to make theta clear out of fifty percent of the
people? Takes about twenty minutes -- if you really got the
horsepower on and you know what you're doing. About fifty
percent. It doesn't take any time. There isn't any time to it.
You de-have the guy, and of course that reduces time. Did you
ever figure that out? I mean you've taken away an awful lot of
MEST suddenly so it of course couldn't take any time.

One day you'll find yourself auditing for five hours and have
been gone for fifteen minutes. I mean, it isn't a joke I'm trying
to put over on you, I'm just talking about that. I talk in this
very extreme fashion. I talked in this extreme fashion for years,
of reducing people's time on them. That's a mean trick. I'm
giving them too optimistic a result. That's a mean trick. Up to
the time when you accumulate sufficient overt acts to get a
reverse vector, to push a whole show across when you've got a
full package and get it on its way.

And everybody who's done an overt act -- they're still standing
down in the sticks, you see -- everybody who's done an overt act
and said a mean thing, got everything all upset, and here's
demonstration and activity and all this sort of thing going on on
every hand -- oh, boy, do you get support! That's a fact. Why
don't you try it out someday? For twenty-four hours make people
do overt acts against you. How do you make them do it? Just be
overoptimistic. Go around and say, "Well, you'll be all right,"
and "Ha-ha! I guess there's nothing wrong with you! I mean -- ha-
ha! You say you got a toothache? Well, that'll be fine, that'll
be fine." You just look at them, they grrrrrind! grrrowl! snarl!

They'll do plenty of overt acts against you. Because a criticism
unspoken, to most people, is an overt act, and they don't realize
it. They just think a criticism, they've done an overt act.
They're that wobbly on their pins, that's the truth.

Now, there isn't a tough case present. There isn't a tough case
present. I looked over this series of cases here, and this is
very, very -- we've all agreed that people shouldn't know this
subject to be audited by it very neatly, we've all agreed to that
very thoroughly, but there isn't a tough case anywhere in this
room! That's the truth!

I looked around here, and I spotted two or three cases as being
rough. And in the course of this, of asking them a question here
and talking to them there and listening to them someplace else,
I've spotted every one of those cases. I don't mean to eavesdrop,
but I spotted every single one of them.

Now, for instance, we have a boy over here, if you don't mind my
mentioning it, all he's got to be given, all he needs is a little
Black and White Control, that's all -- Spot Control. I audited
him too heavy one afternoon, standing over there, wondering if he
could take it. Practically shut his mock-ups off. Put a tire
down, the manhole cover, and a few other things. You could still
throw him through on standard mockups. He kept seeing two bands
of light through a dark field, isn't that right?

[from audience] That's right.

All right. What do you do with those two bands of light through a
dark field? Have him start mocking up communication beams
someplace and tying knots in them. Just give him more bands of
light. He's worried because of two bands of light. Give him six
to worry about. Real tough, isn't it? Sounds tough. And
unfortunately that is exactly what toughness is high on the
scale. We don't -- we find ourselves unable to handle one area,
and so instead of doing the natural cycle thing and reducing the
area we're trying to handle, we just double the size of the area.
That's the way theta works.

You don't find out, "Well..." -- how many times in your life have
you decided, "Well, let's see, I couldn't handle so-and-so and
so-and-so, I guess I'd better handle just a little bit less." And
then the first doggone thing you know, you couldn't handle that
less! What if you'd said -- what if you'd said, "All right, now
let's see, I don't seem to be able to do this. (Sigh) -- where's
two of 'em?" And yet, that's processing in present time.

I recommend it to you very thoroughly. You can't crack this case
you say. Find a couple of worse ones! Go next door and crack that
morgue there and see what you can do. Loss of Time magazine
misquotes me as saying that it revives the dead and dying. So I
guess we'll just have to revive the completely dead. Of course --
of course, I don't recommend, I don't recommend going in with the
-- starting with the magazine, because I have some respect for
your aesthetics. Things can be dead, and things can be dead.

But the point is that you go in reverse, you see? You've decided
already, long time since, that it was rough handling a MEST body.
You've got a preclear who's fairly convinced that it's tough, and
you've got him out there and he's apparently a stable theta
clear, but he gets kind of anxious about handling this body; he
knows he can only do one thing at once. He knows this. He knows
it completely. I don't know, let him go down the street and work
two bodies at once. "Oh, no." You'd say, "No, this isn't the
right road out. This couldn't be. That's just more quantity,
that's..." I'm afraid that is the road out.

And you say, "That case can't be cracked." Sigh because it isn't
a tougher case. You actually don't have a representative strata
of tough cases in this room. I'm not being -- I'm not joking now,
you just don't have them. I've seen some roughies! I know of one,
two, mock-up instabilities here that I would call difficult, a
little bit difficult, for an auditor. They go on the basis of the
black spot, the white spot, you just work with that. That's all.
A little bit difficult. Take a little time. When I say difficult,
take a little time. Standard process. But I don't know three! And
I don't know a VI. There isn't a VI here. And there wouldn't be a
VII here anyhow. But there isn't a VI present.

Why, it's a hell of a note. Reverse vector will make somebody say
around here, "Well, yes, there is, I must be." But the point I'm
making is, is you don't have an adequate starting level here. You
haven't got enough V's to go around. So be careful of them and
conserve them!

Now you've seen some example of processing, and I should have
given you a lot more processing; I should have audited a lot more
of these people. One of the reasons I didn't is I kept looking at
you, and you're all in good shape. You've had a lot of Dianetics,
had a lot of this and that. Well, that -- there is -- wasn't any
point in it! But let me count up the number of hours that it
would have taken -- not an optimistic estimate. I'd -- you know,
there is a sly insouciance of malice that has run through quite a
little bit of this. Sometimes I have blandly stood and told an
auditor, "Look, you've had the guy in there a whole hour. What's
the matter with you?" And then you know what? I knew very well he
couldn't crack the case in thirty hours. But he probably could in
thirty hours if he applied himself. "Whole hour," I've said. And
then find myself faced with the necessity of doing just that. Oh,
no.

I used to shoot circuits on cases just out of desperation. It was
one of the reasons -- one of the ways I started in shooting
circuits. And that's a very interesting process. You take a guy
who can't see, and he hasn't got anything at all, and you make
him feel better suddenly by simply clipping a circuit out, by
realizing he must have this circuit. How do you know what circuit
it is? No meter will tell you. There are too many circuits to
classify them. How do you know? Well -- go on to another subject.

But I'm not being this -- I'm not being malicious when I tell you
that you haven't enough tough cases to go around, because you
simply haven't, and I haven't got a -- I'm not trying to show you
what's being done elsewhere by telling you that in England this
deep into the class we had advanced tougher cases than you are,
further. Maybe it's just because you're too easy.

I imagine it would take somewhere in the neighborhood, to get a -
- thetan exteriors here, it'd probably take me somewhere in the
neighborhood of about fifty hours of auditing to get this whole
class. Probably. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of about
two hundred hours of auditing to get theta clears for this whole
class. Something like that.

I've been struggling and messing around with one or two cases
that -- but I've just been messing around with them. I do that
with friends of mine. I'm very bad that way. Take some poor
trusting individual, I know exactly what the case wants, I know
exactly what the case needs, but I don't happen to be working on
that at the time. I worked on that last month. And I say, "All
right, so-and-so and so-and-so." And there's also this stress:
they sometimes will dive in with enormous confidence into doing
something weird because I ask them to do it; they figure out it
probably is doable. That's not always true! But they always do
it, isn't that funny? I run into very few can'ts.

But here we have techniques which are essentially so easy, you
haven't found it out yet. You just haven't found this out yet,
that's all, to the degree that you could find it out. A lot of
you know that they must be fairly simple, but you've got theory
and you haven't got it digested at all. A lot of the
information's lying around sort of like big lumps of dough, and
you haven't shifted it from the right side to the left side and
turned it red and blue yet. That's all.

And you're liable to sit down and look at some fellow who's --
your first thought's liable to be "I wonder why he's trusting
me!" Or when you're on the couch, you say, "I know very well he
was sitting right there in the same place and he doesn't know any
more about this than I do!"

Well, if you don't want to -- if you want to fool around with
this information that is up to you. It's up to you what you can
do with this, aside from auditing -- I leave to your
imaginations. But I would not mess around any auditor here with
any of the cases here. I really wouldn't. It isn't that you're
dealing with precious cases, or these cases couldn't be solved
one way or the other if you did louse them up. It's that the
results you're getting are not very satisfactory to you. Your
preclear has a half-gone idea already if he's a student here in
this class, that what's going to happen, he knows it's going to
work, kind of, more or less; he hasn't realized it'd work like
that, kind of, because an intellectual... You haven't gone into
an action yet. You're auditing somebody who knows more or less
what to expect and which way it's going to go. He's liable to
find -- you're liable to find special randomities in him, such as
he realizes he must take all this seriously for him to do any
good. Of course you couldn't more patently reverse a vector if
you tried.. But he can still take it all seriously, and it will
still work! Don't doubt that.

What I would do if I were you, advice on this situation, is to
use Standard Operating Procedure Issue 5; use I: Direct
Exteriorization; II: By Beams; III: Spacation; IV: Flow
Balancing; V. Black and White Spot Control. And I'd test around
on these things and I'd test your preclear up for the
automaticity of his mock-ups. Every once in a while you'll find
somebody going by who has such a terrific jiggle on any
consistency that they're shocked to death to find out that they
can't get a simple black spot, when they can get a whole army
marching neatly in rows up the road.

That's because just them has to get that black and white spot, no
circuits pick it up or anything, it's just them. That's all
that's going to get it. There are no marines that can be called
on from the year umpty-umph dash umph, that will suddenly turn up
in the form of automatic buttons long since installed by this
same preclear and do, by experience, this whole thing. Hm-mm.
It's just a black spot. That's all. And buttons won't turn it on
and off. They go jiggle, zoom, zong, crash! They don't tell it
when to move at the right time. Highest level of precision there
is is a black spot. You might think a white spot is, but a white
spot isn't anything. A white spot is known area. And a black spot
may have something in it, and it may not. It is unknownness which
may or may not contain something. It has no light in it, and so
you can't tell. Guy can handle a black spot, he can handle
anything.

If you could handle a black spot completely, and make the thing
expand three-dimensionally into a sphere and spread over the
whole body, and then contract to a small, black billiard ball on
the top of your head, and then go out in front and then stay
consistently out in front, and then gradually and quietly and
without any effort whatsoever expand as a whole sphere and cover
your whole body again, and then go up to the top and out the back
-- you're all right! Nothing to that.

And I would just take those techniques as I have given them to
you and that you'll find on these mimeographed sheets of paper
and you've got in your own notes -- there's no randomity in them
at all. That's what you do. And you might find out that you will
adjust to doing a couple of the steps in reverse, or something --
you happen to decide this is the case -- that's all right. But
I'd go kind of soft with that in the class here.

In the first place, it'll upset the guy if you're doing it wrong
and he knows what you're supposed to do, and that's the only
liability. And the main liability is, when auditing an auditor,
is that if a fellow is a complete noodlehead on his techniques,
the auditor is the first one that finds it out. There is no
liability in auditing an auditor if it is done by an auditor who
knows his auditing. There's no such thing really as altitude
independent of data to auditors and to preclears. And the reason
why it seems to work so well on the people out in the street is
these people out there in the street, they're just walking around
and they -- you hit them with any of these things, it's like
shooting rabbits with a 16-inch gun. And it is on this auditor
too, but the auditor's got a ritual. He thinks you ought to
follow this ritual and he's very critical if you don't. He knows
how he's supposed to be brought up before the altar and carved.

And so I would be very and particularly careful to know Standard
Operating Procedure Issue 5 in this class, and consider that as
the standard of auditing which you're going to receive; and even
though I might send you a cable in two, three days, saying, "I
have a brand-new technique. I've just issued Standard Operating
Procedure Issue 10," you go right on using 5, uh?

And the reason for this is you know 5, it's -- you know that
sometimes a fellow could have a whole palace, gorgeous palace,
all paved in gold and everything else, and fellow gives it to him
and he walks down and he looks at this gorgeous palace and so on;
and he himself, he's living in this little gamekeeper's cottage
down there at the corner of the grounds. And he goes up and he
looks at the palace and, "Gee, it's a nice palace," and then he
goes back to the gamekeeper's cottage.

Why? Well, it's his cottage! It's his bric-a-brac lying on the
mantel; he knows how many inches to reach over to the right to
pick up a pipe or a snuff box or anything that he might care to
want; he knows how -- he knows that the water tap in the kitchen
leaks, and he knows you have to give it an extra twist; and he's
got all of these little gimmigahoojits of handlingness worked out
in it. It's not a new, strange space to him.

That's why people hold on to Book One, for Christ's sakes. People
trained in Elizabeth in 1950 are still auditing by Book One. And
they'll get better results by Book One, up to a point where they
would use this by rote, practically.

There's no substitute for knowingness. And what's knowingness
consist of? Well, in terms of use, in terms of use, it gets it
out into space and energy, and my God, I mean you've got -- of
course, this type of knowingness can't be beat. You know the
space, and the energy and object content of that space, which is
to say you know the auditing room and the preclear, and you know
how that body is going to move and twitch if you say so-and-so to
it. And this is what you expected. And so you get into a nice,
quiet, calm rut about the whole thing.

Well, you've got to be in pretty good shape to change, fast. But
let's take out immediately the question mark which is going to be
in the mind of any preclear present, by not agreeing to be
audited by anything but Standard Operating Procedure Issue 5.
Let's establish that, and it has a consent of agreement that
we're not going to issue anything else on that, and let's just
chew right ahead.

Now, we've got a certain course schedule that has been laid out
and that is all very nice, but the people present are not fair
game. Let's just knock that out as fair game. The world's lousy
with preclears. Why would we have to test any locks or engrams or
anything elses upon anybody here? I submit to you. As practically
anybody can be made better with these techniques, why should you
just test on somebody that isn't going to benefit by them? Why
not spread yourself out a little bit? You might have information
or recommendations to the contrary. I notice a little wave of
"Oh, no" on that coming back at me. Nah, it isn't important. It
isn't important really that you do anything but get your cases in
the best most possibly wonderful condition as fast as possible
and though. get Step I completely out of the road, including all
of the lifting exercises. And just get it out of the road, that's
all.

And then if you want to know what facsimiles look like, look at
some. Pick them up and sort through a couple of card packages'
worth. If you want to know what locks look like, why, spread a
few out. Or go down the street and push somebody's face into one
to see how he acts. And then say, "What do you know? It makes him
cough." And you can do your research completely in reverse rather
than on a couch, if you go at it in that fashion.

That schedule is laid out against a longer course period than
this. And it is laid out in the hope that you won't use class
members to finish off that experimental line. They happen to need
your skill, and you as your own case happen to need the skill of
your class members. Right away, and as soon as possible, and
daylight and nighttime, and the MEST universe is burning. There
isn't any reason to loaf around on a case.

The essence of any auditing is learning how to handle something.
And if you can handle something you can handle something more.

There's a much tougher gradient scale that a guy like me follows.
I don't follow a gradient scale as closely as you might think. If
I fail at something, I set up two. You say, "Yes, you can fall
flat on your face doing that." Yes sir! But when you make gains,
you sure knew you jumped a span. You didn't wait for the
realization to sneak up on you.

You found out you couldn't drive such and such a car, because it
so happened that it had a very, very bad kingbolt. And the front
wheel went kerfluppityflup every once in a while, and every time
you'd skid it into a turn the doggone thing just went
fluppityflup and you knew damn well that that was not going to
work out that way. So you pull the other kingbolt, give it a good
solid rap and a bend and put that back in and then drive it. And
after that, you know, it doesn't matter what a car does. When you
go around a turn and it goes fluppity-floppity flue, you just go
right on around the turn -- with the complete conviction that you
could probably pick up the front end anyway if it fell off. Pick
it up and sort of run alongside of the car with one hand.

The way to do it is not to go back to the garage and have the
kingbolt repaired, because that thing is just MEST universe. The
mission of the MEST universe is "Fail, fella. And then we're more
MEST." "Unless thou failest, I shalt not be." says the MEST
universe. "So you better fail."

The only way to fool it is, is just take a look at it and say,
"It's just MEST. All right." Your own case isn't serious, then.
Your own group could be serious though.

I don't think anybody has given any thought to something, maybe
because it's too far out and beyond one's thought. The incredible
and the fantastic are our best safeguards that you possibly could
have -- the best possible safeguards -- because nobody's really
going to interfere with you.

What do you think -- what would you think of a precaution that
caused you to write down three numerals on a piece of paper and
make your preclear memorize them completely, as an identification
tag and then you threw it in the top drawer of your desk? What
would you think of that? You'd think that was being too cautious,
wouldn't you? Well, you know, in the course of averages, I would
say over a course of five years there will be at least once, if
not five or ten times, if not a -- five hundred times, when you'd
be damned sorry you didn't do it. Just like that.

Who guarantees this fact? The thetan is used to communicating
with the body, right? And a new thetan suddenly grabbing a body
or something of the sort which was left and abandoned could make
it emote, couldn't he? But the guy would look like your friend,
wouldn't he? Dramatic, isn't it? Think about it for a minute.

A fellow could say, "I'm John Jones," because lying all over the
place is the name John Jones. Why, sure, sure, sure, there's
nothing to that at all. Yet he could say, "My auditor was so-and-
so and such and such because it's right there on the ridges,
pictures of same. Must be on the ridges. GE knows something about
it, sort of a dim recollection here, and I can plow around in
this dim recollection and scatter enough stuff up and find all
sorts of things out about the whole deal."

Identification. Who's going to identify you as a thetan? Where
would you go if something happened to you? What if you were
walking down the street and you got halfway across the street and
you had your body down there in the middle of the street and it
was walking from curb to curb, and a fire engine came around and
you didn't even happen to notice it -- you were a long way away -
- and all of a sudden, crash, and you didn't have any body
anymore? Mm, you could go over to the hospital if you wanted to
and pick up this kid that was going to die anyway, and he wasn't
in bad shape; and there's another thetan there in a kind of a
stupid state of mind, so you tell him, "Oh, go on back to Mars.
Another implant won't hurt you." And then you walk around and you
come around to the Foundation, and you say, "Um... What are you
going to say? "Can I come in?"

You obviously are Johnny Jones, just obviously as hell -- except
you're really Mary Stevens. And you want to find somebody who's
in charge of the thing, and you say, "I'm 3-1-1, 3-1-1, 3-1-1.
And you better arrange to get my office and gear back in a hurry,
and let's see if we can't collect the life insurance on that
body!" You think I'm being facetious. It sounds very dramatic --
very dramatic. It's above the level of your experience maybe
right now, to some slight degree. We're really climbing into the
realms.

And so you've got a lot of things to do besides audit. You've got
a lot of things to be interested in. And you poke around enough
and fool around enough and monkey around, and let your own case
be pushed this way and that and not insist on Standard Operating
Procedure on it, and get tacit consent and patty-cake, not go
through this lineup, you can waste all kinds of time! You can
just have a wonderful time, and you can finally wind up by not
having had to do anything at all. That's a hell of a state of
affairs, isn't it?

Is Standard Operating Procedure Issue 5 hard? No. I've had an
awful hard time talking to you about it this many hours. You
think there's an awful lot of data here. Well, there is. There's
an awful lot of communication here that's communicated from
eighty different ways. But the whole truth of the matter is when
it finally becomes yours, it'll sort of go bang! And you'll say,
"Well, I couldn't possibly have spent all that time wondering
about this! I just couldn't have. There it is." Because it's so
simple. And of course you'll go over to somebody, and you'll say
-- Well, you crossed the abyss. That magic, mystic operation
happened at that moment, see? You went from just a schnook to "I
know."

You go around and you say to the grocer, you say to the... "You
know, there's this stuff called Scientology and all it is, is
really just..." and you'll give what your concept of it is.

And he'll say, "Huh?"

And you'll say, "Well, it's like this, like this, you see,
there's space, there's energy, and there's havingness..." and so
on and so on, "and I want to explain to you why you don't have
any time doing the whole thing."

And the fellow will say, "What are you talking about, mister?"

Yeah, that's right, "What are you talking about?" That doesn't
fit with his frame of experience.

You can go around and explain to somebody about this and he'll
look at you so intelligently. Boy, they just look at you so
intelligently, and they go on and on. And you finally find out
they've picked up that when you said that time wasn't as long as
it is now, when you were a little boy. And they finally agreed to
that, because -- the reason they agreed to that is they had a
sudden recollection of how long they thought a piece of ice
lasted when they were young or something like that, and now
they've got the whole subject down. And they go around and they
explain it to somebody, and they say, "You know, when you're
young, pieces of ice don't last as long, they last longer than
they lasted now."

And this fellow says, "Oh, they do? That's very interesting," and
go on about his work.

That's the way knowledge dwindles out. You don't have to go at it
that way, the hard way.

Your own case is quite important. It's important to this group,
it's important to Scientology at large, and it's also important
for your own peace of mind. Because as long as you poke around in
unreality about actuality, things that come along, people can do
this to you, they can do that to you, they can do something else
to you.

I learned something, really, by experience, for the first time in
a long time the other day. Something happened here. Why, I just
realized this. I have been pretty busy. I've been pretty busy,
I've been having a good time about a lot of things and so I've
been working very hard. I haven't had as good a time as I might
have had about a lot of things, but I all of a sudden realized
something. I realized it would be too bad if I suddenly had to
kick the mooring lines off, but didn't really make any
difference. And not -- that is -- wasn't the decision of
idleness, but it was a decision that that wouldn't impede the
action in any way whatsoever. It was too easy to go ahead and
pick it up elsewise. And I -- you know something? I hadn't ever
realized that before?

You know, I mean, really to know, I was in the field of action
with knowledge. And that's the place you know. And suddenly it
was there, and I had a complete realization on that fact, and
with it came this realization: I couldn't be touched! That's a
fascinating thing, isn't it? And you look at these great big
solid trucks, and you look at these great big solid walls, and
all that sort of thing, and you say, "Boy, it sure is prettied
up, isn't it? Looks practically (thump!) real!" But it's not.

And that was action. Worked for a long time, worked very hard.
And actually, under the frame of reference that I was working
sometimes, believe me, it was hard. Because I thought I was
supposed to think it was hard, too.

There's a little over 80,000 hours of work, and there's a lot of
things I would have rather done a lot of times. But I had never
come up along the level of estimation -- something like walking
into one end of a tunnel and suddenly coming out of the other end
of the tunnel. I mean, you can walk in that tunnel for so long
you don't know you've been in a tunnel. And you say, "Well, it
sure is pretty in this tunnel. Yeah, sure is pretty in this...
tunnel. It sure is pretty in this place. Sure is pretty around
here.... Yeah, sure is pretty in this great big tunnel. Yeah,
'tunnel,' that's name for a universe. That's what you call a
tunnel. And that's one of the vastest parts, and that's, oh, I
don't know, two tunnels make an infinity. That's right, that's
the width of a tunnel. Well, maybe a tunnel goes up to infinity.
Yeah. And there's lights, and suns, and stars and everything in
the tunnel," and you go on about this thing. And what's "tunnel"
mean? It's changed its evaluation entirely and there it is, there
it is.

Then one day you're standing outside something and it hasn't got
anything to do with a tunnel. And you say, "Holy cow! How did I -
- what is all this stuff out here? It's space! What do you know!
Why, it couldn't po----" Gee, you know, it's something that you
just all of a sudden then remember that there was a time when you
weren't in a tunnel. And there was a time when I was not working
on Dianetics or Scientology. That's a fact. There was a time.

And another symbolism of it is shoving across an abyss. Well, you
better get sharp, that's all I've got to say. There isn't any
reason fooling around with your own case to learn something.
Phooey! Learn it off somebody else's case. Standard Operating
Procedure Issue 5 will crack your case. I know that. It's about
time you did. Because, believe me, the best way I know of for you
to know this subject now is to find out that it works on you. And
that's the best way.

And it's a funny thing that we've boiled it down to about five
techniques. Five major techniques. That's funny, isn't it? For
the very, very bad off, we've got that, but we're doing
essentially the same techniques, they're all backed against the
same thing. But it's really only about five techniques there.
It's fantastic!

We've only got one process that is key process, and that is we
handle space and energy. And how do we do this? We handle space
and energy by mock-ups. And then we get actual space, and then
one day we'll be looking at actual energy. We say, "You know,
it's the funniest doggone thing, but every time I make a piece of
space the mock-ups in that piece of space are -- were so good!
What do you know! Look at that mock-up! You know, that's the
funniest thing, there, there it is," and so on. You'll find out
they appear and disappear just like -- bang! when you can make
space. There's nothing to it. The value of MEST starts getting
lower, but the value of randomity is such you continue to hang
around it.

Your own case is very important to you from a standpoint of
knowing Scientology. Now I can tell you and tell you and talk to
you and talk to you, and persuade you, and say, "Yes, it works on
you, and it's this way and it's that way and it's some other
way," and so on. That doesn't do any good.

A sudden change in your case, a sudden difference, will do more
for you than any amount of study. Now as you review these tapes
you should also be doing a lot of auditing. On what? To repeat
those class records? No, you go out and get -- you go send --
Western Union sends you a messenger boy, if you want to do that.
You do that otherwise. The thing for you to do is get your own
case in shape, as you go over a review. You really get it in
shape. And of course that's your responsibility, not really your
auditor's. And it's your responsibility that his case is in
shape, and it's the responsibility of every member in this group
to make sure this group's in shape. From there on you won't need
anybody to pop you up in any way whatsoever or tell you anything
more about it. You'll know.

That's the best way I know to know, is to get up the Chart of
Attitudes toward the level called "I know." And I invite you to
climb that ladder as rapidly as possible, not by esoterics or
aesthetics or something of the sort, but by using just exactly
what we've got here, Standard Operating Procedure Issue 5, and
you apply it to the preclear in liberal quantities and get it
applied to you. I don't want to have anybody in this class,
really, if I have any thought about it at all, who goes around
saying, "I helped everybody, and therefore I didn't get..."
That's MEST universe. Phooey! No good.

There isn't any point in my trying to stress the importance of
this, because the best place to know is at the level of the Chart
of Attitudes "I know," and the best way to get there is to use
Standard Operating Procedure Issue 5; and when you use Standard
Operating Procedure Issue 5, you better find out that you get
there. I mean it's that simple. And there isn't any piece of
knowledge I've left out.

The case of an auditor above a certain level does not need
refurbishing continually. He'll keep it squared away. But the
case of an auditor below that level requires constant attention,
so it's better to get up above that level. That would be the
level of stability, the level of tolerance.

And it's in the tolerance of he can get into action or he doesn't
have to, at will. And that doesn't say that you're dependent,
then, upon the economics or other things of this MEST universe.
You are not, not even vaguely. And the sooner you learn it the
stronger and happier you will be and this group will be.

Recommend to you very strongly liberal doses of this.

[End of Lecture]
