 
Subject: FZ Bible 3/9 LEVEL 1 TAPES 
Date: 1999/06/26 
Author: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net> 
   Posting History    
 
FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
 
LEVEL 1 TAPE TRANSCRIPTS (SHSBC LECTURES) 3/9
 
**************************************************
 
Contents 
 
1 Contents + Appendix HCOPL 10 Oct 61 Problems Intensive
2 SHSBC-18  renumbered  20  22 Jun 61  Running CCHs
3 SHSBC-21  renumbered  23  27 Jun 61  CCHs-Circuits
4 SHSBC-46  renumbered  50  29 Aug 61  Basics of Auditing
5 SHSBC-64  renumbered  68  10 Oct 61  Problems Intensive
6 SHSBC-65  renumbered  69  11 Oct 61  Problems Intensive Assessment 7 SHSBC-295 renumbered 324  15 Aug 63  The Tone Arm
8 SHSpec-17 renumbered 379  21 Apr 64  Problems and Solutions
9 SHSpec-42 renumbered 405  13 Oct 64  Cycles of Action
 
Based on the modern clearsound academy cassettes plus 6 of the 8 lectures were also checked against the old pre-clearsound cassettes (omissions marked ">"). 
 
Note that two of the tapes posted by Zenon in the FPRD cassettes are also often included in level 1.  These are:
 
SHSBC-61  renumbered  65  3 Oct 61  The Prior Confusion
SHSpec-12 renumbered 374  19 Mar 64  Flattening a Process
 
Note that two of the Freedom Congress lectures are also
included in the modern level 1 academy cassettes.  We will
be doing these as part of the complete Freedom Congress
later this summer.  They are
 
FC-4  5 Jul 57 Basic Theory of CCHs
FC-15 7 Jul 57 CCH: Steps 1-4 Demo
 
A complete list of Freedom Congress, SHSBC, and all other tapes
can be found in Pilot's tape master list available at fza.org.
We recommend it for use in keeping track of tape renumbering.
 
**************************************************
 
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 freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics.  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 Judiasm 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
 
**************************************************
 
 
CCHs -- CIRCUITS
 
A lecture given on 27 June 1961
 
SHSBC-21 renumbered 23, 27 Jun 61 CCHs-Circuits
 
[Clearsound version, NOT Checked against the old 
pre-clearsound reels]
 
 
Thank you.
 
Okay. Well, this is the 27th of June, or was the last time
I looked. It might have slipped.
 
You're apparently doing all right in a mild sort of way.
The biggest difficulty people are having right now,
although they don't know it, is CCHs: how they are done.
What was that, way back there in the dim, historical past?
You know, that sort of thing. Big conferences about it all.
 
The monitoring and regulating factors which lie back of the
CCHs should be placed in your hands. There are some
monitoring factors that answer all of these questions if
you want to get down and figure them out. And that is
simply, the CCHs are a physical activity. They are not a
mental activity.
 
That tells you at once that they are not verbal. So if you
go ahead and whistle "Yankee Doodle" and give the Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, compounded with William Pitt's lecture
on the protection of colonies, what's this got to do with
the CCHs? Got the idea? I mean, you could give the CCHs
totally mum and they would work.
 
Look at what answers as a stable datum, see? Therefore, do
you ever ask the pc (and take his data) the following
question: "How is it going?" And then do you take his data? Do you then use the data to determine whether or not the
process is flat? No, I will say you don't.
 
Now, why do you say, then, occasionally to the pc, "How are you doing?" Why do you say this at all?
 
Well, I call to your attention - I think it's clause 16,
isn't it, of the Auditor's Code, which has to do with
remaining in two-way communication with the pc. And that is
all that has to do with. And it wouldn't matter if the pc
said "I have eighteen bayonets protruding in my stomach." The pc has not visually been observed to have a single
change of comm lag or physical twitch, jitters, screams,
fusses, yammerings - there's been no change in anything the
pc is doing for twenty minutes. And you say to the pc,
"Well, how are you doing?"
 
And the pc says, "Well, my stomach is full of all these
bayonets. And I've had this somatic turning on and off in
my left torch, and so forth." And you say, "Well, that's just fine. Well, thank you very much. All right. We're now
going to do the next CCH." That sounds weird, doesn't it?
 
Now, two-way comm with the pc. Now, in CCH 3 and CCH 4, why
do you say to the pc, then, "Are you satisfied that you did it?" That restrains you, fellow Scientologist, from pulling a gag I've seen happen too often. We don't care if the pc 
said he did it or didn't do it or couldn't do it or hadn't 
been able to do it or was satisfied that he had done it or 
thought he had halfway done it or if he answered you in Arabic. We would say, "That's fine," and we would give him the next command. You got the idea?
 
Now, to keep the pc in two-way communication, we do the
same thing, only we talk to the pc. But talking to the pc
in the CCHs, you might as well be talking to the birds. It
has nothing to do with your running the process. Just make
up your mind to it. Because I'll tell you what I do; and
the CCHs work for me very well. And I tell you what I do.
 
Never with an invalidative statement or frame of mind or
anything of the sort, I move a book from the left to the
right. See? My left to my right, you know? And the pc, I
hand him the book. And the pc picks up the book, and the pc
scratches the back of his neck with it. And then I say,
"Well, are you satisfied that you did that?" And the pc will say, "Oh, yes, I did that."
 
And so I take the book - and maybe not the exact motion - I
turn the book on edge, and I move it from my left to my
right. And I turn the book upside down the next time. (He
thought he did it that time too, except he stepped on it.)
And I'll turn it upside down, but I will keep moving this
book from the left to the right until the pc does it.
Otherwise, it's a flub. It is a flub.
 
It's a delicate balance between invalidating the pc, you
see, and making sure that you duplicate the auditing
command that isn't flat, because the one from the left to
the right is not flat. Couldn't be. He hadn't a clue. You
got the idea? He just didn't have a clue.
 
You moved the book from the left to the right and the pc
picked up the book and scratched under his armpit with it.
And you say, "Well, did you do that?"
 
And the pc says, "Oh, yes. Yes. I did that." And you take the book back, and to keep from invalidating him you turn
it around the other way and you move it from the left to
the right. And you faintly differ it in the position of the
book or something of the sort, or your hand or whether you
extend your little finger or something, but it's still a
motion from the left to the right at the same rate of
speed. Got that?
 
All right. And I keep duplicating that type of motion until 
the pc is flat on it.
 
Hand motions, same way. Same way. I asked him if he
contributed to the motion, and, shucks, he was running
halfway across the room, you know? And he says, "Oh, no.
Yes. Yes. Oh, yes. Yes, yes. I contributed to the motion
all right."
 
That's good. He gets almost the same one again, and he gets
it until I think he did it too. You understand? That's a
delicate balance.
 
If a pc starts feeling invalidated because you were
repeating the same motion, well, a lot of things could be
wrong. "But I did that," he says. Ah, yes, but a pc can say "Well, I did that" if you moved the book from the left to the right, and then on the next motion of the book you
moved it in a circle behind your own head. And the pc says,
"But I did that." What did you do, pc? Yes, he just did that. He moved the book from the left to the right by
scratching the back of his head with it. You got the idea?
You'll run into these.
 
Well, so why plunge in that deep before it becomes idiotic,
don't you see? The pc did it, he did it, and if he didn't
do it, he didn't do it. But you mustn't be pedantic,
because instead of an acknowledgment you give an
invalidation. And as soon as you start giving an
invalidation instead of an acknowledgment, why, the pc
starts going downhill, not uphill, because you're giving
him lose, lose, lose, lose, lose. And you've got to give
him win, win, win, win, win.
 
All right. He thinks he did the same one by scratching the
back of his head with a book when you moved it from the
left to the right. Well, that gave him a win. You said,
"That's fine."
 
Now I go ahead and move books from the left to the right,
don't you see? I keep going on moving books from the left
to the right, but not accusatively. It's a very delicate
point.
 
Physical motion is all that counts in any of the CCHs. And
it doesn't matter what the pc says. You're trying to keep
in communication with the pc, and that is all there is to
it. Follow? That's all there is to it.
 
You'd feel awfully strange if a robot clanked into the
room, sat down in the auditing chair and began to pump your
hand. As a matter of fact, you'd feel a little queasy. And
in view of the fact that this has probably happened quite
often on the track - that a robot walked in and started to
dismantle you or something of the sort because you'd just
had your doll body revoked - you react very badly to
something that doesn't communicate. You probably wouldn't
even object to the robot dismantling your doll body if he
came in and said, "Well, I got an order here from the
general council that you, having been guilty of mopery and
dopery in high space, are herewith deprived of one doll
body, and we're going to take it apart and leave it on the
bench for seventy-two hours." (No, that's what I used to
do. This is a different one.)
 
And you probably would have gone along with it. It wouldn't
have been quite so bad, but some inhuman, unspeaking,
unthinking, unfeeling set of cranes suddenly move in and
start pulling the doll body apart, some uncertainty has
entered into the situation.
 
So therefore, I keep the uncertainty out of the situation
in doing CCHs. I say, "Well, this is what we're going to
do." And I do it.
 
Now, you can make all kinds of mistakes in running the
CCHs, but that stable datum will set you right on most of
them. It's a physical action, it's physical observation,
and those are where the CCHs live.
 
Now, there's another one; there's another one: No command
in the CCHs is left understood. You don't clear a command
and then insist that the pc do it from there on out. In
other words, you don't say "Now, you're always going to
turn counterclockwise," and then we never thereafter give
him an order to turn counterclockwise. That violates the
rules of auditing commands. And the principal rule of an
auditing command is, it is given now, in this unit of
time, and nothing has any validity except this unit of time
and the command that is just given. You know that, as an
old standby from way back when.
 
Well, don't violate it with the CCHs. Don't say "Well, now
hereinafter as aforestated you're going to turn
counterclockwise," and then correct the pc if he turns
clockwise. Oh, no. The pc has no orders to turn clockwise.
 
You say, "You give me that hand." If there were no
designation of any kind, it would be perfectly proper for
the pc to give you either hand.
 
If you say "You turn around," in CCH 2, and there's no designation of any kind which way to turn around, then any
way that the pc turns around is right. Right? There's no
designation.
 
Now, if you want the pc to turn in a certain way, then
before you give the auditing command, put your hand on his
shoulder and start to turn him and say, "Turn around." You got that? That's a designation, isn't it?
 
And "You give me that hand": you nod at the hand. Pointing at the hand, you will find if you practice it, is not
feasible. You can't point at the hand and then pick up the
hand and then do this with the hand; it is just too much.
But you can nod at his right hand and say, "You give me
that hand." It's a physical thing, anyhow, you see?
 
The thing is all actually done by theta communication and 
physical motion. The two things are combined, and the English
language has nothing to do with it. But we just stay in
communication with the pc. You got the idea? So that's why
we have the commands.
 
Now, putting the hand back in the pc's lap causes a great
deal of difficulty to one and all. Now, what do you do? Do
you put it in his lap or something?
 
Well now, if the pc's hand were to be very limp as he
extended you the hand - if the hand's very limp, you see;
you've actually had to take it by the wrist, and it's out
there in an acute state of catatonia right now - and you
drop his hand, if by some accident it were to strike his
knee or strike the edge of the chair, you would have been
in violation of a primary function of an auditor, which is
to safeguard the pc from harm during a session. If anything
makes a pc scream - it's you preventing somebody from coming
in the room, you preventing him from lousing himself up.
You get the idea?
 
Because it's your responsibility that the pc can be audited
in that session, particularly at that moment of the
auditing command. And you go ahead and drop his hand in
thin air, and he knocks his wristbone, or something like
this, against the edge of his chair, and so forth, well,
that's a silly thing for you to do, don't you see?
 
The same time, it is equally silly to take a pc's hand,
when the pc is putting it decently back in his lap every
time - to call out a couple of destroyer escorts and have it
escorted back there. You got the idea? That again is silly.
So the things that are silly in the CCHs or that seem silly
to you are probably wrong. You've probably got them wrong.
You got the idea?
 
There really is no one-two-three-four-five-six drill. This
was invented later while trying to teach the people, you
see? There really is no such drill. The pc is giving you
his hand quite nicely. Well, all right. So you take his
hand. And he's removing his hand from yours quite nicely,
on an acknowledgment, and putting it in his lap or on the
arm of the chair. Well, what else is called for at this
point? Nothing else is called for. You simply sit there,
give him the command, and take his hand, thank him. But
then all of a sudden he's getting coy and he doesn't want
to give you his hand, so you pick his wrist up and move his
hand over and put it in your hand. Right?
 
All right. Now, at this time you notice that the hand, as
it touches yours, is in a complete state of inertia. Well,
you certainly are not going to drop it any more than you'd
drop your watch. You've got to put it someplace, so you put
it back in his lap. Got the idea? So reason governs these
things.
 
All right. Now, let's take this fact, which has got some
auditors a bit loused up, because a lot of auditors knew
8-C, and 8-C is not Tone 40 8-C. 8-C is not a CCH. We only
carelessly refer to CCH 2 as 8-C. It's not 8-C. It never
was. 8-C goes something like this: You say to the pc, "Look at that wall." No - not 8-C; not the first 8-C. The first
8-C is "Walk over to that wall." "Touch that wall." See? "Walk over to that wall. Thank you. Touch that wall. Thank
you. Walk over to that wall. Touch that wall. Thank you."
That's it. "Walk over to that wall. Thank you. Touch that
wall. Thank you. Walk over to that wall. Thank you. Touch
that wall. Thank you." That was old 8-C in, I think, in its most virgin original form before it got raped by
misunderstandings.
 
Now, the next evolution on this line is unimportant,
because it evolved pretty far. But frankly, Tone 40 8-C,
unlike CCH 1, Give Me That Hand, improved through
complication. It is better in the final form that it was
in. But the final form of development I don't think was
ever printed. And it was a you preceded each part of its
commands. "You look at that wall." And the auditor would point to the wall. "You walk over to that wall." Now, there was a further point of complication, is "You walk that body over to that wall." Skip it. That's getting too
complicated. But "You walk over to that wall. Thank you.
 
You touch that wall. Thank you. Turn around. Thank you. You
look at that wall. Thank you. You walk over to that wall.
Thank you. You touch that wall. Thank you. Turn around."
 
Now, that was a high point of complication from old 8-C.
Now, this point of complication went further. It's "You
look at that wall. You walk that body over to that wall,"
or "You make that body walk over to that wall. With your
right hand, you touch that wall. You turn that body around
clockwise." Now, you see, that's going just a little far.
 
It is what works. It is what works. And that earlier one
that I gave you, "You look at that wall": All right, the pc looks at the floor. Clank! Your jaw comes up, straighten
your hand out on his jaw, and wham! he looks at the wall,
see? That's it. You grab him actually by the back of the
neck and his jaw, and he looks at that wall. If he
squinches his eyes, that sort of thing, you've still got
this hand ready and you pull his eyelids open. That's
correct. That's a perfectly correct action. Got it? All
right. And he's looked at the wall.
 
And now, "You walk over to that wall." And he walks over to that wall or he gets carried over to that wall, but there's
some kind of action takes place where he transports himself
from where he is to where you want him to be.
 
Now, when you say "You touch that wall," you therefore don't pick out a spot for him to touch and you don't pick
out a hand for him to touch with because it is not an
understood proposition at all. You haven't said it in the
auditing command, so therefore his putting his right knee
against the wall is an adequate response to the auditing
command. Correct?
 
All right. Now, in view of the fact that you actually
intended him to touch it with his hand, after a while if
the right knee seems to be just a little bit too insouciant
or something of the sort, I have been known to add in "With your right hand, touch that wall" - not as a correction of
my own auditing command, but on subsequent commands. But
that's a change of the command and so it isn't so good. And
you'll find out that if he will touch the wall even with
his knee, it takes a little longer but it will run out his
resistance to performing the maneuver. Do you understand?
So there's no sense in being pedantic about it.
 
Now, I'll straighten you out quite clearly about this. It
is "You look at that wall." He does. You say, "Thank you," Tone 40. And you say, "You walk over to that wall." And he does. And you say, "Thank you." And then you say, "You touch that wall." And he does. And you say, "Thank you." And then you say, "Turn around. Thank you." And that is about all there are to it.
 
That is a very simple evolution. Now, as I say, you can get
too pedantic and so forth. But that factually - that
factually - is a more operable command line than a
complicated command line, and it is more effective than old
8-C by considerable.
 
Now, when you've got this fellow whizzing and dealing, you
could hand yourself some loses if you said to yourself
"Now, I intended for him to touch the wall with the heel of his left foot by Tone 40 intention, unspoken, and he didn't
do it. He touched it with his hand. Therefore, I've had a
lose." Yes, you could fix yourself up to have some loses
that way. But that's nonsense. It exceeds the process. It
has nothing to do with the process. You want this fellow
under control and you want him to get the communication,
and you want him to gain havingness, and this is a very
fine process with which to do it.
 
All right. As far as CCH 3 is concerned, this is old Hand
Space Mimicry, and it just doesn't matter much what you
say. There are a set of commands. They haven't become
unduly complicated or anything of the sort, except you
don't dispose of the hands. You don't do anything like
that. You give it onehanded with an unwilling pc. You only
use one paw, and with the other paw you steer him through
the motions. Okay?
 
And the book, same way. You make one-paw motions with the
book. And if the pc doesn't do it, of course, you tuck the
book in his paw and you move the book in the motion, and
you thank him for it and take the book back. All right.
 
Now, CCH 1, now, has as its additional ramifications - had
the left hand, both hands, all kinds of hands. You
understand? Well, why call it another process? Why call it
another process? You don't have to do these things. You
don't have to not do these things. But you do the process
that isn't flat. That is to say, if you're saying "You give me that hand. You give me that hand," and the fellow
(paraon me, you hon't have to say "You give me that hand," just say, "Give me that hand") - the pc has been giving his right hand for about twelve, fifteen hours of auditing, 
and this is getting dull even to you, because he's been flat 
on it for some time, every time you went by it and so forth, 
start nodding at the other hand. See? Bust down his 
automaticities.
 
Now, I use these things that every time I come back through
the CCHs I will break down an automaticity on this
proposition. I bust up the installed machinery. And that's
the only reason you flip over to the other hand or start
saying "Give me those hands," or anything of that sort. Now, there's another point here. It has value, in other
words. It has value. And that is the only thing that
regulates an auditing command or process. Does it have
value? Well, it does. It has value.
 
Another thing I do consistently in running the CCHs you
might be interested in is that I change my pace every now
and then. It's "Give me that hand. Thank you. Give me that
hand. Thank you." (pause) "Give me that hand." (pause) "Thank you." (shorter pause) "Give me that hand." (short pause) "Thank you."
 
Now, originally, when this was being done in London, they
were studying, actually, to give the same auditing command
newly in the same unit of command, and they were actually
building up machinery this way. And the guy could build up
machinery against this thing faster than you could tear it
down. And the way to bust up machinery on CCH 1 is by
occasionally varying the pace.
 
And the pc will jump it. I just sit there and look at him.
You just never heard of his hand, you know? You haven't
said "Give me that hand" yet, you see? And here's his hand out there practically busting your chest open, you know?
He's jumped the command - jumped the command one way or the
other. And it's a good control factor. And I will actually
pick up a person's hand, put it back in his lap gently,
something like that, and then give the auditing command.
You got the idea? I'll refuse his hand if I didn't ask for
it. But that's only when it's too pointed, and there's no
particular reason to communicate it because the
communication is usually enough. The person is made aware
of the fact that they've jumped the auditing command, and
they haven't been aware of the fact they've been jumping
the auditing command, you see? The last five or ten that
you gave them, they've been jumping the auditing command.
Their hand is halfway over at the time you say the auditing
command. Of course, it doesn't have too much to do with the
verbalization of the thing, but you haven't even laid the
intention into him yet, see? So you're not auditing the pc.
He's gone on some kind of a machine.
 
Well, the way to bust that down is put comm lags in your
auditing. Speed it up or slow it down slightly. You don't
even have to do it extremely. And the pc is giving his hand
at this rate: "Give me that hand. Thank you. Give me that
hand. Thank you. Give me that hand. Thank you." He's giving his hand at this rate, you see? That'd be pretty fast. All
right.
 
So you say, (short pause) "Give me that hand. Thank you." (short pause) "Give me that hand. Thank you." "Give me that hand. Thank you." "Give me that hand. Thank you." "Give me that hand. Thank you." (rapidly) "Give me that hand. Thank you." (pause) "Give me that hand." (pause) "Thank you." Got the idea? You can practically see the cogwheels on the 
machinery fly off. You know, the guy - "What - what's this? What's-what-what's going on here? Oh, there's an auditor here. 
Oh! Oh, oh. Something new has been added to this room. I hadn't noticed this auditor before."
 
Now, of course, the original of the CCHs was that the
individual was given an auditor by the CCHs, and we found
out the main thing that happened - we found some auditors,
by the way, who were never found by the pc. For some
peculiar reason, the pc just never found these auditors,
and it'd sometimes happen, factually happen, that pc after
pc wouldn't find the auditor. And yet we found, when we
taught this auditor to run the CCHs, that he normally could
get away with this, and he called attention of himself to
the pc.
 
But this wasn't when we had the CCHs. This was afterwards.
This first mechanism was given to a pc ...
 
I think it is trait - well, it's actually traits B and C, I
think, are the main traits, see? 
 
Female voice: A, B and C, Ron.
 
Well, it's A, yes, but it's C that I keep my eagle eye on;
and if C doesn't rise during an intensive, well, I just
conclude he never found the auditor, that's all. And if he
never found the auditor, there's no reason to blame the
auditor. It's just the pc has a rather poor power of
observation. And you should have been running the CCHs,
that's all, because they were the remedy for this sort of
thing. When we'd see graphs of this character we knew
something else was indicated, and so on, and developed some
drills by which this could be done. There were a great many
of these drills, and they finally peeled down to the most
effective of these drills, which became CCH 1, CCH 2, CCH
3, CCH 4. Those are the most effective of these drills.
These are the ones that seem to have an effect on almost
any case.
 
Now, the purpose of those was to find the auditor, and
therefore, if the pc goes on automatic, he hasn't got an
auditor, has he? Well, a pc can go on automatic. Now, you
needn't worry about it too much. It doesn't put any strain
on the situation. You just run the CCHs right, and this
automaticity takes care of itself. But I will call to your
attention the fact that it is silly to continue to pace
your auditing commands on an automaticity if you don't
expect one to occur in the pc. See, if you want one to
occur in the pc, always keep your auditing commands exactly
at the same pace.
 
On doing CCH 2, you'll find this pc is halfway across the
room and you haven't said a word. And I am rather fond of
making him look a little silly. You know, somebody's been
jumping the gun, I'll just stand there. You know? "What's
this all about? What's this?" See? They normally come back
to where they were. I don't even tell them to come back.
They will, usually; they come back and stand there,
contrite. It brings it home. It brings it home.
 
But, of course, these points make them find the auditor,
don't they, without invalidating them terrifically; because
actually you are not invalidating them, they're doing
something weird that has nothing to do with the process.
This makes them very aware of the fact, too. Busts it up
quick.
 
Now, running the CCHs are then based upon what is doable,
and making every auditing command newly, and based as well
on the fact that they are a physical process. They have to
do with theta-MEST.
 
It's a direct theta-MEST process. Your command is a theta
command. That is to say, you're laying it into the guy. You
could probably do the CCHs - if you were real good, you could
probably do the CCHs without opening your mouth. If you
don't believe me, if you're running real hot someday, think
the auditing command to the pc. You know, in other words,
transmit it to the pc.
 
I'm calling this to your attention because an auditor could
really muck up a pc this way, you see? Puts the intention
into the pc's head, and then comm lags, and then gives the
verbal auditing command, and then criticizes the pc because
the pc has jumped the gun. This would be a wonderful way of
invalidating a pc. You get the idea? You actually could do
it.
 
Because in running a pc, it happens all too often. I mean,
I'll be coaching or something like that. I don't play fair
on Upper Indoc coaching and that sort of thing; I start
doing it Tone 40, and they'll eventually go straight into
the process, bang!
 
What you can observe, however, is think the auditing
command at the pc, you know - I mean, put the intention
there, independent of your verbalization. Put the intention
in the pc's head and watch his hand jump to touch the wall.
It's quite interesting. If you're good at it, you can make
him do it. But that you can't do it is no particular reason
for anything, because one of the things that can make you
fail to do it, the pc might be rigged wrong. And you put
the intention in his head to touch the wall and he stamps
his foot, you see? Doesn't mean anything, except he's got
his switchboards crossed.
 
For instance, I was very much invalidated one time. There
was a fellow came to call, and I didn't particularly want
to see anybody that particular day. I had a lot of work to
do or a lot of leafing to do or something of the sort. I
was trying to figure out something. And so I thought an
intention into the living room, you see, that he would
leave. And, by gosh, he didn't. And you know, I thought
"This is very upsetting," you know; I mean, "What's the matter with me? I'm slipping my cogwheels and I have failed
utterly," and so on. I went about my work and eventually
the nattering and snarling and so forth kept on coming.
Didn't have anything much to do with what we were doing,
you know?
 
Had some acquaintance with this particular individual a
couple of years afterwards, and I found out something very
interesting: The individual was on an intentional reverse.
See, he was totally inverted on intentions. And thinking
the thought into his head that he should leave would glue
him in the chair, you know? Just stuck. I never did run the
reverse experiment on him of thinking he should stay glued
in the chair, particularly, but I have, on others, and
actually seen them practically be catapulted out of their
chair. Fantastic thing, you know? "Stick in the chair" and wham! They're going, "Well, we got to go now." And they just came for the evening, you know? Terrible, terrible
situation.
 
Actually, unless you were doing a whole-body control of the
pc, you could think - like you can think at a MEST object
and make an ashtray sometimes move or do something weird.
People running Upper Indoc sometimes have funny things
happen with ashtrays, and so on. They get quite upset about
it and they think they'd better not do it, and things like
this. But the best thing to think at an ashtray is "You
have gravity; you have no gravity," you know, that kind of
thing, if you want something funny to happen with ashtrays.
 
Anyway, if you're just thinking an intention at the pc,
you're just as likely to activate one of these crisscrossed
.. It looks like the janitor relieving the switchboard
girl during a noon hour in which an emergency occurred, you
know, and every wire is out of its socket, and they're all
in crisscrossed across the boards, and all phones are
plugged to all phones and all of them wrong. So, of course,
you call up the president's office or something like this
and you get the electrical-maintenance shop, you know? And
it's just all crosswired. And you run into that in running
the CCHs.
 
So it actually isn't "all the pc's fault." The pc is not necessarily being recalcitrant when he doesn't follow your
auditing intention or starts to blow up or wogs or does
something like this. What you're actually doing is you're
giving him the intention and the guidance to carry out that
intention, not the intention then called upon by the
switchboard.
 
If you want to have some fun sometime with an E-Meter,
start talking to the entities in a body. There's all kinds
of screwball phenomena that we've run into. We probably
have more phenomena and nonsense that we have discovered
about life and so forth in Scientology than they've
accumulated in the whole of the last fifty thousand
years - infinitely more. It's really, really goofy.
 
You could sit down and start talking to somebody's circuit
and just get the pc to relay what the circuit said. And for
some peculiar reason, you hook in the circuit harder and
harder and harder and harder and harder. And of course, the
oddity is that a circuit hooks in on drop of havingness,
and that you're making a communication line talk across to
a circuit. You are (1) validating the circuit, and (2) you
are running down its havingness. Because a circuit has no
livingness in it. It is simply a motivated mass. And if
there's anything running it at all, it is mass. So you get
a circuit to communicate very much, and mass goes. If you
want to pull somebody's circuits in on him, run his
havingness down.
 
There's a funny experiment that goes with this, by the way.
It takes rather special conditions to operate, and you have
to be pretty sharp to get this thing. There's two or three
of these. One of them is a problem. That's the commonest
one and the easiest one to do, is the individual tells you
you have Ihe has] a present time problem. So you say,
"Think of a solution." And he gives you a solution. You say, "Good. Think of another solution to this problem. Oh,
good. Good. Think of another solution to this problem." And you wonder why this pc is starting to go wog, man. And he
does. He starts to go wog.
 
Because you're doing something to the stable core of an
area of motion, and you're leaving all the motion on
automatic, you see? And what happens is that - I got the
mechanism on this a few weeks ago, and it's in my notes
somewhere - but what happens is actually the person is not
confronting the actuality of that thing at all. He's not
confronting what is actually going on, he's confronting a
solution to it, which means he's trying to not-is what it
is, and the problem mass moves in on him. And it's quite
interesting to watch.
 
You can ask a pc, "Do you have a present time problem?" You're fortunate, yes, he's got a present time problem. All
right. You say, "Now, do you have any masses anywhere in
the vicinity of your body?"
 
And he says, "Yes. As a matter of fact, there is one out
there about four or five feet."
 
You say, "All right." Now, here's the exact mechanics of this: You say, "All right. Now, what is this present time
problem of yours?"
 
And he says, "Uh ... well, um ... actually, uh ... Joe and
Bill and Pete uh ... have all ganged up on me and they
won't speak to me." And you say, "Where is this black mass now?" He says, "Well, it's eight or nine feet out there." And you say, "Well, describe this problem you have to me." And the individual says, "Well, it's uh...it's Joe and Bill and Pete, actually, and uh ... the problem is, is I don't
seem to be able to get along with them. I don't talk their
language well."
 
And you say, "Well now, all right." You say, "Well, where is this mass now?"
 
And he says, "Well, it's fifteen or twenty feet out there." You're liable to get this type of response, you see?
 
All right. You say, "Well, good. Good. Think of a solution
to that problem." And he does. You say, "Where is this black mass now?" And he says, "Well, it's out there eight or nine feet."
 
"Good," you say. "Well, think of another solution to this problem." And he does. And you say, "Where is this black mass?" And he says, "Well, it's out there about four or five feet." And you say, "Well, that's good."
 
You say, "Think of another solution to this problem." And so he does, and you say, "Where's the black mass?" "Well, as a matter of fact, what black mass? Things have gone
black." All right. Now you say, "All right. Now, think of a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem." He does.
You say, "Where's this black mass now?" "Well, it's out there about a foot from my face."
 
"Good," you say. "Think of another problem of comparable magnitude to that problem. All right. Now, where is that
mass now?" "Well, that's - it's five or six feet out in front of me."
 
You say, "Good. Think of a problem of comparable magnitude
to that problem. Where is it now?" "Well," he says, "it's out there about twelve feet."
 
"Good." You say, "Well, think of a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem. Where is it now?" And he says,
"Well," he says, "it's way out there."
 
You say, "Well, think of a problem of comparable magnitude
to that problem." And he does, you know, and so forth.
"Where is it now?" He says, "It disappeared." 
 
You say, "Well, that's good. Good. Think of a solution to
that problem. All right. Where's that black mass?" "Well, it's over there on the horizon."
 
"Good. Now think of a solution to that problem. All right.
Where is it now?" "Oh," he says, "it's out there about twenty feet." "All right. Think of a solution to that
problem. Where is it now?" "Well, it's out here about four feet in front of my face." And "Good. Now think of a
solution to that problem." "Well, it's gone black." 
 
And you can run that silly problem ... For some reason or
other, people who have problems who are capable of seeing
at all visually will always tell you that there is a black
mass connected in the vicinity, and solving the problem
brings it in, and getting problems of comparable magnitude
pushes it out. It's a matter of confrontingness, is the
clue to this. If they're not confronting the problem - 
they're avoiding it, you see - it, of course, on any vacuum 
arrangement at all that's bringing it in, of course it just 
moves in closer. And then if they are looking at it, it tends 
to move out, don't you see?
 
Now, you can do the same thing with havingness. You say,
"Well, what problem have you got?"
 
"Well," he says, "Joe and Bill and Pete and they won't talk to me anymore."
 
You say, "Good. All right. Now look around the room and
find something you can have. Thank you. Look around the
room and find something you can have. Thank you. Where is
that black mass now?" And he says, "Well, it's out there about nine feet."
 
And you say, "Good. Look around the room and find something you can have. Look around the room and find something you
can have. Look around the room ... Where is that black mass
now?" And he says, "It's out there about twenty feet." 
 
And you say, "Well, look around the room and find something you can have. And look around the room and find something
you can have. Where is it now?"
 
He says, "Well, it's disappeared." You say, "Good. Think of a solution to that problem." Back it comes.
 
And you can just play hurdy-gurdy with this problem, you
see? Out it goes, in it comes. And it's within your control
to move this black mass in on the pc or move it off of him,
just on whether or not you have him gaze at the stable
datum in the middle of it: solutions ... You see, that
stability alone is being held there by the motion, the
unapparent motion in the mass. That's all confusion, you
see? You're getting him not to look at the confusion when
you ask him to get a solution, you see? And you've got that
mechanism. When you "think of a problem of comparable
magnitude to that problem," you've said the same thing as
confront it. It's a similar statement, in other words.
"What is the problem?" you see? Well, you've said confront it. You get the idea?
 
"Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem." What if you had him doing that? Well, you've taken the
automaticity over of his bank creation of that black mass,
except people don't for some reason or other do well on
this. I do all right on it and a lot of pcs do, but enough
people don't that we don't use it anymore. No creates. That
is to say, we don't run create loosely. If it turns up in
the Prehav Scale, run it. So it half-kills the pc - he'll
run out of it.
 
Here's the crux of the matter, however: that you can move
around, by the regulation of problems and solutions - or
mass and no mass, which is havingness and no
havingness - you can move around black masses in the bank.
Now, that is a simple one, and anybody can do that
particular set of experiments and achieve those results,
more or less. Of course, the pc has to be able to see a
black mass. Sometimes they see only invisibilities and this
and that, and sometimes they're so snarled into problems
that nothing can move off. But on the average pc, you could
probably run this experiment.
 
Now let's take the next experiment that proceeds from
here - I said, the more difficult one. The pc has a circuit.
You say, "Do you ever have voices? Ever have any voices
talking to you?" The psychiatrists have been worried about
voices ever since there's been psychiatry. It's practically
synonymous with insanity if somebody has voices talking to
him. Well, gee whiz, they ought to look at my collection,
man. They ought to really look at my collection,
because - it isn't so much voices, but I usually compose
piano music by listening to it. And I will set up a circuit
that plays piano music and then forget to take it down, and
a half an hour later all of a sudden here's some piano
music, you know? I'm never startled about what it is. And
then I say, "Well, that's it," and that's the end of that piano music, and will take it down. You get the idea?
 
I wonder, for instance, how wind will sound in a certain
rigging rig, you know? Is this going to be a real noisy rig, 
you know? And I'll set up a ship and some wind and let her
howl, you know? And that's the way it sounds, too. And then
say, "Well, I've found that out now," and I will set the whole thing aside and skip it, you see? I just cease to
create it and it's no longer there.
 
I can set up moments of force - moments of force, tension,
compression and that sort of thing - and check something out
visually, rather than set it up mathematically. Just set it
up and - well, give you a problem in a derrick, something
like this. Now, when the derrick is stayed at certain
points, and the stress is added at certain other points,
which way is the derrick going to bend? And actually will
build the derrick up and push the points to give it the
stress, don't you see, and see which way it's going to bend
and that sort of thing, and it works like that. And it sure
saves an awful lot of wood carving and string tying and all
of that sort of thing. And these things are usually right.
 
And this is just methods of setting up situations
synthetically to find out how they will operate in the real
universe. And that is not uncommon. The weirdest one I ever
heard about - it was Nikola Tesla, when he invented
alternating current, set up an alternating-current motor.
And what he wanted to know ... He had set it up so it would
work, you see. (And we've had the same motor ever since;
nobody's even changed a bolt in it. And it's too bad he
didn't set up a better cooling system in it.) And he let it
run for two years - his problem was will it last, you see?
So he set this thing up in mental imagery, you know? He set
it up in the bank and let it run for two years, and at the
end of two years he decided that it was pretty well
designed, so he built it. That's Nikola Tesla. That was the
way that boy invented everything.
 
Now, I'm not above doing a mathematical problem on an
abacus. You know, put an abacus up out there and shuffle
the beads on the abacus back and forth, carrying over
decimals of one character or another, and keep carrying
these decimal setups, and finally add it over on the left
and right side of the scale.
 
An abacus is a very interesting piece of machinery. It's
almost an adding machine or a multiplying calculator. They
give it to little kids in school and I see these little
kids in school going wing-wing with the beads, you know,
and they're counting one, two, three, four, five - learn how
to count on it or something, or add. Well, that isn't the
way you use one. You use them on complicated septisigmal
systems or decimal systems or something like this, and you
keep carrying them over from one side to the other. I
suppose you could write a book four feet thick on the use
of an abacus.
 
Anyway, set one of those things up. Well, of course, that's
a very easy thing to set up. It's a very easy thing to set
up a column of figures and find out whether or not the
figures are right. It is actually much more fun to simply
set up a computer that, after you've done the problem, will
verify the result.
 
This is tradition - people like Lecky and so forth. I think
it was Lecky, the guy that wrote probably the basic text on
navigation for guys that didn't like pedanticism. He said a
navigator is no good unless - when he calculates the
position he doesn't have a sixth sense to tell him that the
answer is right or wrong. He said a navigator is no good
who can't do this. Actually, very few people can do this,
but the best navigators can all do it. They'll add up
columns of figures, and so forth. Susie's seen me do this:
go down the line on - not navigation - go down on the line
and get about halfway through a problem and say, "Well,
that's wrong. That's wrong." You see? You got six columns
of figures or something of the sort, but the answer is
wrong, and just throw it out and do the problem all over
again. Sure enough when I get down to that point, something
was off, see?
 
All right. This simply is an establishment of rightness or
wrongness, and it's also done by circuitry.
 
All right. I'm talking now about useful circuitry. Let's go
a little bit further over into useful circuitry. Common
circuitry - this is not obsessive circuitry. This is just
ordinary, run-of-the-mill voices in the head, you see? But
this is the way they are really set up.
 
We get into a situation where we want to know what it's
going to be like tomorrow - weather. We call the Weather
Bureau, and they give us a lot of calculations all based on
the rudimagoojits and the wingdings that are going
whizzle-whizzle on top of the mutt-wutt. And this all
calculates with the dice-o-therms and the cat-a-bars, you
see?
 
Man, there have been more aviators plowed into fog banks
and so forth by these dice-o-therms all twisted around the
cat-a-bars. I wouldn't be seen dead with one of them
myself.
 
They finally got a practical method of investigating hurricanes. They fly an aircraft patrol over the area all the time, and 
when they see one, they take its latitude and longitude on 
Loran bearings and report it. And then they plot its course 
and speed, and they say where it is going. And even then they
predict its destinations wrong.
 
Weather is not something that is trustworthy. Actually, do
you realize that if you plotted out for England "Tomorrow
will be fair," that you would be 50 percent right? Did you
know that? And you know the Weather Bureau only hits 38
percent? It's interesting, isn't it? So if they just took
it at random and told us every day tomorrow would be fair,
at least they'd be giving us hope.
 
But the science of weather prediction is - well, let's be
kind - it's in its infancy, and they figure out what the dew
point is on the Rye up in North Manchester, and that gives
us the Sussex coast, you know? I mean, it's real nice. I've
studied with these boys, and they have a very serious
approach to life. Let's say that. But what I used to twit
them about was their tremendous overweening confidence in
the things that were going hurgle-gurgle and their total
avoidance of ever reading yesterday's prediction - the only
way they could keep their morale up, is the way they used
to inform me.
 
Well, you can set up a circuit that will give you
tomorrow's weather. Very easily. I wouldn't go to sea
without one.
 
Now, some people do this and then blame it on the
rheumatism, because they hook it into the rheumatic
circuit, you see? And then they say, "Twinge-bad weather
tomorrow," you see? But you needn't get that drastic.
There's no reason to set up an alarm system just because
it's going to be foggy, you know?
 
The facts of the matter is, is what you set it up is out
here, and you say, "What is the weather going to be
tomorrow?" So you take the increment of time known as
tomorrow and you observe it. And that tells you what the
weather is, of course, because you look around the scenery,
having looked at the increment of time which is tomorrow,
having looked around and found whether or not it is
raining, windy, foggy, cold or hot, you are then pretty
safe - providing you can with equanimity look at tomorrow.
That's how simple a circuit is.
 
Compare it now to all these substitute calculations. If you
could simply say, "All right. Let's take a look at the
weather tomorrow ..." In view of the fact that the weather
hasn't got very much consequence to it - almost all of you
have lived through rainstorms without melting - this is an
element of tomorrow which almost anybody could mock up, or
almost anybody is willing to observe. There's no great
danger in it.
 
Oh, quite something else: We are in a tremendous emergency
with regard to court actions or something of this sort, and
we want to know, man, because our whole life is hanging on
the rim of the precipice, what is the judge going to say
tomorrow, see? Or who is going to win - is Greasy Knees
going to win the third at Pimlico, see? We've got the
family jewels on it, and we haven't bothered to tell
anybody that we put the family jewels on it, you see? Now,
there's lots of pressure connected with this sort of thing.
So we say, "Let's see." Well now, look, with what
confidence are we regarding tomorrow, you see? We're
regarding it with no confront, because there's tremendous
numbers of confronts mixed up in tomorrow that we don't
want to have anything to do with. We won't look at the bad
decision the judge is going to make or the fact that Greasy
Knees is going to live up to his name, and ... See? We
won't look at those consequences, so we get a one-sided
view of the increment of time known as tomorrow. And then
that becomes very untrustworthy because we are postulating
at the same time that Greasy Knees is going to win the race
and the judge is going to put down a favorable decision. So
we wind up looking at our own postulates, not looking at
tomorrow's weather. And then, of course, we get a wrong
predict about 90 percent of the time. Get the idea?
 
So you can predict to the degree that you can confront. And
if a person's confrontingness is very bad off, never trust
their prediction.
 
All of a sudden I was going down a boulevard in Phoenix, Arizona, driving along minding my own business. I must have had some 
kind of an overt that day (probably thinking bad thoughts about
Purcell or something), and I got halfway down through the
middle of the block, and Wands the psychic reader suddenly
diverges from a stream of traffic on a four-lane highway
and drives casually, not even rapidly, this way across the
street and runs into me. 
 
Male voice: She "wanda'ed!"
 
You said it! And her father got out and gave me her
professional card. I don't think I would have had any
confidence in that girl.
 
Now, her confront was a thing to be horrified about, you
see? Nobody got hurt, nothing happened, but this is
pretty weird. But her confront was terrible. We found out
she was trying to turn a corner, but that was half of one
of these five-hundred- or six-hundred-foot blocks behind
her! She was turning a corner where there wasn't any!
 
Now, wouldn't you think her confront was rather poor? All
right. Now we're going to base a lot of reliance on her
prediction. Ah, but her prediction is directly related to
her ability to confront.
 
Now, people who can't or won't confront anything don't even
confront present time, much less tomorrow. But they will
try to confront obsessively tomorrow or yesterday in the
hopes that they won't have to confront today. And, of
course, there isn't any tomorrow that they're confronting.
That is a totally goof tomorrow, you see? And the yesterday
probably isn't right either. Ask them what they had for
breakfast, and they'll give you the awfulest ramifications,
which is just a total not-is substitute of what they really
ate, you know?
 
Now, here's the situation. If you're in fairly good shape
on the subject of confrontingness, you could rise well
above weather.
 
But let's supposing that hiking up into tomorrow was of no
great consequence to us. You know, we didn't particularly
want to go through the ritual, you see, of saying "Let's
see. What is the date? All right. What is the hour? At what
time will we be doing something tomorrow? All right. Now,
let's confront the area in which we're going to do that
thing. All right. Now let's see. Are they cirrus, cumulus,
'altocastalatus,' nimbus," you know? And do a complete
catalog of the situation. Take out our wet-and-dry-bulb
reading, you see, and so forth, and get the whole thing
straight and write it down. Seems a little bit arduous.
 
So what you do is set up a secondary circuit. Not because
you can't confront tomorrow but because you don't take time
to confront tomorrow, you set up a secondary circuit and
make it look at tomorrow. It's a prediction circuit. Now it
looks at tomorrow, and you set it up to look at tomorrow
instantly and give you only one result: yea or nay. You can
set up these instantaneous circuits with the greatest of
ease, so long as they're just yea-or-nay circuits or
something like this. They're not going to give you any
complex result, you know? You know, you could even set it
up for tomorrow and if it's going to be nice weather, wave
a green flag, you know, and if it's going to be bad
weather, why, wave a red one. I don't care what, see? It's
just boom, you know? And you eventually find yourself
possessed of some kind of a circuit that tells you the 
weather tomorrow.
 
And one day you're scrambling around, doing something else
and you suddenly look up and something is waving, you know,
a brilliant red flag.
 
Now, where you go nuts on circuits is when you say, "Who
put that there?" - no, "Who else put that there?" and "What does it mean?" And we can get quite a game out of this.
It's a big game of mystery and so forth. Well, all you 
got to do is find out the purpose of the circuit and it'll 
ordinarily blow up, or you can set it up.
 
Now, pcs that haven't got control of their circuits or
haven't taken over their circuits for many, many years,
haven't inspected them - I say many years, I'm talking about
many billions of years; they've just let this bric-a-brac
accumulate and they've not done anything about it, and so
forth - you start auditing them and something waves a red
flag. They say, "What's this? What's this thing?" you know? Or a little train goes by on the track with a sign in each
car. Youknow, a little sign in each car, and it says It
Will Be Bad ..., and the next three signs are blurred. And
the pc says, "I'm going round the bend," you know? Or you ask a pc, "How did you know the answer to that question?" He said, "Well, this little train went by and it had a word in each car." That's the answers to the question.
 
You'll find some people go around on circuitry auditing,
don't you see? Only their circuits are so old, so
forgotten, so neglected, and were put up in such an anxiety
of not-to-confront that of course they can't confront
anything about them now. And any time they get in the
vicinity of them, then the circuit tells them what to say
and do.  And you're running into this in auditing all the
time, and that's the anatomy of the circuit. It's just a 
no-confront of any kind whatsoever. Therefore, running 
Havingness and Confront along with processes actually 
improves the circuit.
 
How does it improve the circuit? It improves confront;
naturally, that improves the status of circuits, because
circuits only go bad when an individual refuses to confront
an area and puts a circuit in it instead. He first did it
to save time; later on he began to believe that he couldn't
confront that area, there was something very unconfrontable
there. Why is it unconfrontable? Well, he has a circuit
doing it, doesn't he? So therefore it couldn't be possibly
..
 
It's like the fact that they put a television camera in the
atomic blast furnace, you know? Because they can't put a
nuclear physicist in there, they know that. They've tried
it, you know, and they just can't make it. I don't know why
not. Anyway ... Anyway, that's remote viewing, or remote
knowing.
 
Now, it's this other thing I was telling you about. You
hear a bird chirping outside, ask the pc to make a picture
out there and then bring it in here and look at it to find
out what kind of a bird it is. And my God, you get anything
from a rhinoceros to a three-tailed whoosis, you know?
Hasn't anything to do with this cuckoo that is out there;
nothing to do with a cuckoo. And you very often ask an
individual this. This is an interesting diagnostic
question.
 
You talk about bric-a-brac that we know in Scientology; we
know so darn much that it's ... I tell you, if we were
handling this as a scientific activity which cataloged
everything we knew, you see, in relationship to it, and
then took a paper down on everything there was there; when
you realize that a preclear is capable of an infinity of
differences, you just multiply infinity times the number of
preclears there are and you got that many papers we'd have
to file, and I don't like to file papers.
 
Somebody will curse me someday for not having written
everything down that we ever knew and put it in a library
file. But let me call to their attention that people have
been doing this for a long time and they still didn't know
anything. There might be something suspect about the
method.
 
All right. You tell this pc, "All right. Now, your primary
aberration, and the exact terminal we want to run now: All
right, that's what we're interested in. We're interested in
your primary aberration, the exact terminal we want to
run. All right. Now, over there where it is, or wherever it
is, make a picture of it. Good. Thank you very much. Now
look at the picture. Now tell me what it is."
 
And you know, they will tell you some of the most
remarkable things. It may or may not be the right answer,
but they certainly are remarkable. They're certainly
remarkable. They'll get some pictures of childhood
influences.
 
A psychoanalyst would go absolutely drooling mad. The
absolute deliciousness of this particular modus operandi
would have thrown him into a tizzy, you know, like tigers
get when you put perfume on them. Man, that would be
marvelous. He'd just have an unlimited data. He wouldn't
have to depend on dreams anymore; he wouldn't have to
depend on anything anymore, anyplace.
 
All he'd have to do is tell this person, "Now make a
picture of what's wrong with you. Now look at the picture
and tell me what it is." And the fellow says, "Well, it's a picture - it's a picture of my grandfather sitting in front
of the stove. And I seem to be in the stove." (I did that
myself one time - surprised myself half to death.) "Now
what's this? What's this?" "Yeah, well, that's what it is." "What's this?"
 
In the first place, you made a picture - you told him to
make a picture of the bird that he heard and you heard
outside the window, and then bring it in the house and take
a look at it. And he didn't get a picture of a bird, he got
a picture of a rhinoceros. Or it was a different kind of
bird, is the "usualest" thing. It's an alter-is.
 
Well, naturally it's an alter-is, because this action of
taking the picture of the object and then looking at the
picture is of course an alter-is of confront. You didn't
tell him to take a look at the bird and say what it was:
You told him to take a picture of the thing and say what it
was. You got it? So you've removed it that much, so
therefore he's just that far from being able to confront
it. Okay?
 
All right. Our next point, then, as we're looking at this,
is a very simple one, is that you're trying to get
individuals to look directly at things, and their circuitry
encourages them not to look at things because it's normally
set up to spare them the trouble of confronting, or to
avoid having to confront something, so they confront it on
a via. And as you audit the pc, these things go live.
 
Two things make them go live. His havingness drops, so
therefore he becomes a little anxious, so therefore he
starts relying on circuitry to predict and that sort of
thing. Or his confront drops. Or his confront improves, or
his havingness improves, and either way these things can go
live. In other words, his havingness or confront drop, they
go live, on a deteriorated basis. His havingness and
confront is improved, they go live because he's coming up
through it, don't you see?
 
And all of them are observation on a via. So everything
he's trying to do basically is characterized by
alter-isness or observation on a via. Auditing on a via,
everything on a via - it's just on a via. That is the motto
of the thetan. It's not direct, it's on a via. And your
methods of getting him there are to walk him up rapidly so
he has less and less vias, less and less vias, less and
less vias, which means less and less circuits, less and
less circuits, less and less barriers - you get the
idea? - more and more confidence, more and more assurance.
More and more ability to confront, actually, isn't it?
 
That's why you don't have confront on your main list,
because itself is a result and an end product; it itself
isn't a doingness, it's an ability.
 
All right. That explains to you, then, some of the oddities
that occur, particularly in running in the CCHs. And these
oddities are considerable.
 
Because you're activating circuits and you're knocking out
circuits, because the direct control and communication
brings about a continuous shift of circuitry in terms of
havingness. And then because you've got him in PT and he is
confronting another body, another being, his own body and
the physical universe, of course his havingness is also
coming up on that particular basis and you shift through
lots of circuitry. And it's a way of plowing straight
through circuitry. And you get all kinds of things going
live and shutting off, and so forth.
 
Now, if you were to turn around and talk to these circuits,
and said, "Well, how do you think the pc's doing now?" 
 
"Oh, you think it's going to rain tomorrow. Oh, I see. I
get it. Hm. I understand. Hm-hm."
 
If you're plowing somebody rapidly through circuits, what
are you trying to do? You're trying to plow him through
circuits and raise his havingness and his confront,
basically, with the CCHs, which is communication and
control, improve his havingness.
 
Well, what's your end result if you suddenly go into
communication with these circuits? Because circuits are
coming live and circuits are going out and circuits are
coming in and circuits are going out, your pc's liable to
say anything.
 
This is a beefy process, you see, your CCHs. And your pc at
any given moment is liable to tell you anything. He's
liable to predict anything. Anything is liable to happen.
So the less attention you pay to what the pc is saying or
what the pc thinks or what the pc feels while you're
running the CCHs, the better off you're going to be. And
that's why you never end a process just because the pc
thinks it's flat. And as you're plowing somebody through
circuitry of one kind or another, as he is moving up the
line, he gets somatics, he gets comm lags, he dopes off, he
does this, he does that. What's dope-off? It's just a
no-confront of magnitude, you see? And it means that
something is happening to the confrontingness of this pc.
It's a good indicator.
 
Comm lag means something is happening to the confrontingness 
of the pc. Dope-off also means something is happening to the 
havingness of the pc. Dope-off also means that something is 
happening to the confroniing of the pc. There we go. I mean, 
it means all those things.
 

