deja.com
Click here to download free software -- ZDNet Exclusives!
Click here to download free software -- ZDNet Exclusives!
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
 Home  »  People  »  Humanities
 >>  Theology 
fz bible 18/19
Explore More:

5¢ long distance!
Save $$$$$.

The Best of ZDNet
Delivered to you free!

Earth's Biggest Selection
Shop at Amazon.com

The Ultimate Directory
Cool stuff from InfoSpace

Classifieds
Cool stuff from InfoSpace

Price Comparison
Cool stuff from InfoSpace

Rate it!
Maclaren Opus Duo X280 - Ohara '99 Twin Stroller
or choose another to rate
(1=worst, 5=best)
Safety
15
Ease of use
15
Comfort
15
Cost / Benefit
15

  • Compare it to others
  • User Comments
  • Shop new or used
     
  • top rated
    Baby Strollers
    1. Evenflo On My Way Travel System (Stroller/Car Seat)
    2. Aprica Quantum Royale
    3. Baby Trend Sit N Stand LX II Twin Stroller
    4. Baby Trend Sit N Stand LX III Twin Stroller
    5. Baby Trend Snap N Go
  • See the full list...
  • Deja Forums
    Atheism
    Atheism
    Atheism
    Satirical atheism
    Atheism
     
    Deja Communities
    WASHINGTON DC SINGLES
    walking in Sunken Meadow
    Children of Divorces
    During Separation & Divorce
    Divorce

    Start your own community in Theology.  

    My Deja
    Get more out of Deja: Register to easily manage your discussions and communities, and improve your searches. Plus, get email alerts about new posts in your favorite discussions with Deja Tracker!
     
      discussions     ratings     communities  
      back to search results 
    Help | Feedback
    >> Community
    Next in Search
       >> Forum: alt.religion.scientology
          >> Thread: FZ Bible 18/19 CLASS 8 TAPES
            >> Message 1 of 18
     
    Subject:FZ Bible 18/19 CLASS 8 TAPES
    Date:1999/07/04
    Author:Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
      Posting History Post Reply

    FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
     
    CLASS VIII TAPE TRANSCRIPTS 18/19
     
    **************************************************
     
    CLASS VIII TAPE TRANSCRIPTS - CONTENTS
     
    01  SEP 24, 1969 WELCOME TO THE CLASS VIII COURSE
    02  SEP 25, 1969 WHAT STANDARD TECH DOES
    03  SEP 26, 1969 THE LAWS OF CASE SUPERVISION
    04  SEP 27, 1969 STANDARD TECH DEFINED
    05  SEP 28, 1969 THE STANDARD GREEN FORM AND RUDIMENTS
    06  SEP 29, 1969 MECHANICS OF TECHNIQUES AND SUBJECT MATTER
    07  SEP 30, 1969 CASE SUPERVISOR DO'S AND DONT'S:
    08  OCT  1, 1969 CERTAINTY OF STANDARD TECH
    09  OCT  2, 1969 THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING
    10  OCT  3, 1969 ASSISTS
    11  OCT  7, 1969 ASSESSMENT AND LISTING BASICS
    12  OCT  8, 1969 MORE ON BASICS
    13  OCT  9, 1969 ETHICS AND CASE SUPERVISION
    14  OCT 10, 1969 AUDITOR ATTITUDE AND THE BANK
    15  OCT 11, 1969 AUDITORS ADDITIVES, LISTS AND CASE SUPERVISION
    16  OCT 12, 1969 STANDARD TECH
    17  OCT 13, 1969 THE BASICS AND SIMPLICITY OF STANDARD TECH
    18  OCT 14, 1969 THE NEW AUDITOR'S CODE
    19  OCT 15, 1969 AN EVALUATION OF EXAMINATION ANSWERS
     
     
    **************************************************
     
    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
     
    **************************************************
     
    6810C14 Class VIII TAPE 18
     
     
    THE NEW AUDITOR'S CODE
     
    Well here we are coming down to the end of the course. Down
    toward the bitter end of the course. I haven't done your
    folders today. So I don't know whether you will leave clean
    or not. You will be happy to know that the two folders
    which were offered in lieu of the examination, on one of
    them the whole courses auditing was delivered by John
    Purcell in a matter of one hour, to a very well done.
     
    Very amusing on that one, the pre OT said when he went to
    the examiner, "And when I started it I didn't even know if
    I was a Straightwire release."
     
    And on the other one, and on the other one I knew a bug
    existed on the case, one way or the other. And I handed it
    out with a completely straight face, and what needed to be
    done was the full four rundown, and I knew very well the
    case needed a repair action before it could be done. The
    auditor did start the session, and then suddenly realized
    he had better do a repair, so he ended off, did another
    C/S, and carried on with it, also to get a well done.
     
    So, very good. Now let's see. What number lecture is this?
    (Eighteen) Lecture number eighteen. The Class VIII Course,
    Sea Org. And the date? The last time I looked it was the
    what? (Fourteenth) Fourteenth of Oct. AD 18. Very good.
     
    This lecture starts out with a rewrite of the auditors'
    code. I apologise to those who have gone to a great deal or
    trouble memorizing the auditors' code. But you must realize
    that the auditors' code was many, many, many years out of
    date. Because it talks about flattening three comm lags of
    equal length, and so forth. Whereas we have moved us into a
    different strata of approach, so the auditors' code has to
    be realigned into the field and area of standard tech. It
    now has, the auditors' Code now has twenty five clauses,
    and is in a different form. It's in the form of an oath.
    And it's actually HCOB, or HCO Policy Letter of 14 October
    AD 18, which will be in auditor 43. It's for you, and will
    be issued to you tomorrow. And it's to all auditors in the
    world, since it doesn't just apply to Class VIIIs. And you
    having a copy of this can drive it home a bit.
     
    So, I'll read it to you, and take up its' various points.
    It's the auditors' code, auditors' code AD 18. In
    celebration of one hundred percent gains attainable by
    standard tech, it begins. And then it says, "I hereby
    promise as an auditor to follow the auditors' code. Number
    one. I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him
    what he should think about his case in session." Now that
    clarifies that. The other one, you could tell a fellow he
    needed auditing. But the word evaluate is, very often gets
    in the road of an academy trainee. He doesn't quite know
    what it's all about, so he just passes it by.
     
    Give you an example of evaluation. "No, that's not the
    cognition you should have there, it's... " Well god, these
    things do happen you know? I mean, these things do happen.
     
    Somebody doesn't understand this, and wild things happen.
    "I don't think that you have completed the list because you should put drug fiend on it." In listing and nulling. I
    have actually seen auditors sit and suggest items for a
    pcs' list. Now it's quite one thing to make a prepared
    list, and if it's it and if it isn't it it isn't it. But
    it's quite something else under listing and nutting to
    suggest that the preclear put down three or four more
    items. He's listing who or what has suppressed you, and the
    auditor says, "You should put your mother on the list, and
    you should put so on, and you should put so on." I know it
    sounds absolutely impossible, but it has happened in the
    past."The usual reaction to this process is so and so, so
    now you should... " "The manifestation which you're
    exhibiting at this moment is normally considered insane."
    It can get pretty damn wild.
     
    Now this is best understood as being an opposite to what
    was laughingly called psycho analysis, developed in the
    late 20's, along with other oddities. And the psycho
    analyist, he operated this way. He would say, after he'd
    had the fellow talking for one hour, or four hours a week
    for a year, to find out whether or not he could help him,
    why the fellow would finally remember somebody who had
    suggested some sexual action to him, which was the whole
    target of the years' conversation, when he was three. And
    just about the moment he would think of this, the analyst
    was supposed to jump up and say, "That! That's what's wrong with you, and now this means this so and so, and it means
    this and this, and it means that and that and that! Now do
    you understand that? Now if you're very careful after this
    you will be perfectly sane. That's all." See? "Now we can enter on the long one, which is five years at four hours a
    week." I'm not joking. That was standard procedure.
     
    That went so far, and entered into this, and when I taught,
    I think it was something like twenty one psychiatrists
    something about Dianetics in Washington D.C., they were
    leading psychiatrists of that area by the way in the
    nation, these birds listened very avidly, only they could
    never get past the introductory lecture. They didn't, they
    didn't know that they didn't know, and they were in a very
    astonished sort of state. And they listened to this over
    and over.
     
    And about the third lecture, which was I was just giving
    the same introductory lecture every night. And they were
    supposed to then have some Dianeticists who were going to
    show them how auditing was done. And how you ran engrams.
    And how you really did this stuff. But they never got to
    that. They just got to this introductory lecture. They were
    sort of frozen state of astonishment. And finally, after
    three or four lectures, one of these birds, a psycho
    analyist, he went back out of the lecture, and he went back
    and he used it. God knows. He used it. He'd never seen an
    auditing session in his life, see? But he used it on this
    paranoid that he had been dealing with for years, and he
    came back, and he was madly enthusiastic. Boy, this
    Dianetics really worked. "I used that return mechanism you
    talked about, and I actually got him returned to an area
    where he was lying in his crib. And, he had dirty diapers,
    and his father wouldn't change his diapers. And I could
    point out to him right at that moment that that's why he
    hated his father!" What I'm telling you is actually word
    for word, verbatim, an actual incident.
     
    Now that sort of thing can go on. And people are so used to
    giving advice and telling people what to thing that the
    reverse is quite different from what was normal procedure.
    So therefore it leads the line. Not to evaluate for the
    preclear. Or tell him what he should think about his case
    in session. And it is a very necessary bit. If you ever
    want to see some preclear spin, it's, it's on that one. He
    can spin. And that is why, by the way, in psycho analysis,
    one third of the patients in the first month of processing
    committed suicide. And it's probably just this evaluation
    plug. And then the analyst said, "He came to me too late." That was his standard response to this. They always came
    too late. I think if they'd come at the year of one year
    old it would have been too late.
     
    What is not generally known about older practices is they
    did not have the target of making somebody sane. They
    didn't have any of these targets. They didn't have the
    target of making somebody brighter, or more sane. They
    concluded that a person, once he had an I.Q., he had an
    I.Q., and it was never going to change, and it never would
    change, nothing could change it.
     
    And you would ask these birds what they were doing all this
    for, and they really didn't know.
     
    So you therefore find it's rather difficult to understand
    them, and the point of difficulty in understanding is a
    very simple one. It's because you are assuming that they
    have a goal or target of making somebody sane or making
    somebody better. And they don't have that goal.
     
    What goals they have god knows, I have interrogated them
    many times. The only trouble is, when I talk to them they
    generally go into an hypnotic report of some kind or
    another. They go, gong! And so forth. Weird.
     
    They, another practice that was in that field is most of
    their practitioners came from institutions.
     
    And they would take somebody who was an institutional case
    and he would become interested in the subject, and then he
    would be trained. And that is, was, it. Now you think I'm
    joking, but that happens to be the truth. I counted noses
    on them one time or another in a certain area and found
    they'd all been institutional cases. And many of them go
    back into the institution after they've been practicing a
    short time. That was what psycho analysis and what they
    call psychiatry and so forth was all about. It wasn't a
    question of making anybody better. I don't know. It seems
    to have been some kind of a dramatization. Perhaps a
    dramatization of R-6, Cause there is a psychiatrist in R-6.
     
    But I will point this out to you about this particular area- I
    will point this out. That the word psychiatrist is misused
    and mis-named. And has been borrowed falsely, and is
    falsely used. So is the word psychologist. That is false, a
    false name, which is improperly used. Because the word
    psyche means soul in any dictionary, and a psychologist is
    a student of the soul, and a psychiatrist is one who treats
    the soul. Both of those groups using those two terms at
    this particular time, alike say in psychology they don't
    know what it means. That's a fact. That's in the textbooks.
    They don't know what this word means. And they do not treat
    the soul, but in the next three minutes of play, invalidate
    it. It came in with a Professor Wundt of many a year ago.
    1879, Leipzig Germany. That man was, the whole modern
    psychology actually came in with this fellow Wundt. And he
    said man was an animal. And he had no soul. And they called
    it psychology. Do you see? So the word is a complete
    misnomer and they have no right to it.
     
    Similarly, the word psychiatrist is a complete misnomer.
    They have no right to it. Nowhere in the world is the title
    psychiatry legalized. That is not legally held by anybody.
    They hold the title by reason of a medical doctor
    internship. And in most laws, anyone who is permitted to
    administer medicine is permitted legally to treat the
    insane. So the medical doctor who administers medicine is
    the only one who is actually permitted to treat the insane.
    These other fellows have to have a medical certificate. The
    medical doctor, by the way, would very happily get rid of
    all of these boys. He doesn't want them. That is actually
    the state of mental healing as it is.
     
    Now it shows you that we have to put this in an auditors'
    code, right up to the front of the line, that there have
    been fantastic abuses in this particular field. So
    therefore, therefore an auditor in training should
    understand that thing pretty well. And I have found
    auditors being trained at level zero and so forth, who had
    been over it, who had read it, who didn't know how you
    could invalidate anybody, or how you could evaluate
    anybody. And these fellows, these fellows were doing it.
    One way or the other.
     
    Now one of the ways of evaluation is by an expression. You
    can evaluate by expression. You can hold your nose or
    something, you know? Or frown in some peculiar way. And the
    preclear now knows he isn't doing correctly.
     
    Now, the second one, is "I promise not to invalidate the
    preclears' case or gains in or out of session." Now
    invalidation is the think level of hitting. If anybody has
    any idea of what invalidation means, it's a think level of
    hitting. And instead of hitting the fellow you invalidate
    him. Instead of taking a maul to his skull you say "You are a bum." So it's not very difficult to understand. But if
    you go around telling people their cases are bad, they
    aren't doing well because their cases are bad, and that
    they haven't had any gains and so on, you can fold them up
    pretty badly. I've seen them very, very badly folded up,
    and I've seen where invalidation of case, coming up on
    later sessions, was a very heavy hold up on the case.
     
    Now you can find other things wrong with a person, rather
    than to invalidate his case. "Yeah!" you say, "Well the reason you aren't doing well is because your case is in
    terrible condition, and why don't you get it fixed up?"
    Very often husbands and wives will get involved in what
    they call Scientology fights, and start using terminology
    and invalidation of this particular line and so on. And if
    you're very wise don't do it. But particularly that's
    something an auditor mustn't do.
     
    Now, three is "I promise to administer only standard tech
    to a preclear in the standard way." That puts you in the
    running. Now I decided I'd give you some big choppers, you
    know? Some big teeth that you could come down with.
     
    Now four, "I promise to keep all auditing appointments once made." Now the reason that that is in there, is I have seen some cases have a very bad time of it, and I know of one
    case currently that is having a very, very bad time of it,
    simply because the auditor said he would be there to audit
    him at such and such an hour, and he drifted in late, and
    this guy started to self audit, and all kinds of wild
    actions have occurred from that particular point forward.
    It is a bad code break. After a PC has sat around for a
    half an hour, waiting for the auditor, his case is so
    damned stirred up that there isn't very much you can do
    about it very often. He's, he's impatient, he's angry, he's
    ARC broken, he's this and that. Well the reason he gets
    this way is he puts his, sort of his case on a time
    schedule. Alright, it's supposed to be, it's supposed to be
    nine o'clock and the auditor's supposed to be there at nine
    o'clock. And he's supposed to be there at nine o'clock, and
    so his case is all ready to fire at nine o'clock, see? And
    then the auditor doesn't arrive Still nine twenty, and the
    case actually will be found at this moment on a protest or
    on a blow. And they're actually very hard to audit when
    appointments are not well kept. But you notice it says
    appointments once made. So the reverse of it, of course, is
    damn it. Don't make appointments you don't think you can keep.
     
    Alright, number five. "I promise not to process a preclear
    who has not had sufficient rest and who is physically
    tired." Now the background of this, is one time I drew a
    coordination back in the Wichita Dianetic Foundation. A
    tremendous influx of institutional cases were being thrown
    at Dianetic orgs way back when. A Dianetic auditor of those
    days got so that he could process a psychotic standing on
    his head. It was easy as pie as far as he was concerned.
    They all cut their teeth, because for some reason or other
    a great many institutional cases came in, and there was no
    proviso that they shouldn't be audited by Dianetics at that
    time, and so the Foundation did audit them. And it was a
    very bad show. And it messed things up most gorgeously. It
    wasn't that the cases weren't handled, oddly enough. Those
    cases were handled left and right and center. But very
    often they were sent in as bird dogs. And they were sent in
    to spin. They had already received some post hypnotic
    suggestion under drugs that they were to go to a foundation
    and then, when audited, were supposed to spin. This isn't
    me talking through my hat. That's what was supposed to
    happen to them. And we had one case where the parents of
    the girl showed up about forty eight hours later expecting
    if the money had been accepted and that she was being
    processed, and the girl had spun, and that they could then
    you know, lay it in with an egg, an axe. Well, they were so
    stupid as to send in the lawyers' check as her payment. And
    this girl came in and nobody could figure out where she
    came from. And she was obviously spinning madly. And so, no
    sign up was done of any kind whatsoever. They put the money
    aside to be refunded and sent the girl off to a motel or
    something like that to wait for somebody turning up,
    because they figured somebody would turn up. And in forty
    eight hours, sure enough, her parents turned up. Wrath, you
    see? "What have you done to our daughter to drive her
    crazy?" Well you see, nobody had done anything to her daughter.
     
    Nobody'd touched the daughter, but she had spun. Not
    because she was refused auditing, but because she'd been
    set up to spin. Don't think that post hypnotic suggestion
    and that sort of thing was not known to these guys. They
    knew all about this. And I've seen at least two or three
    cases directly attributable to this.
     
    Now therefore, every once in a while a case like that will
    show up. Now the funny part of it is, not that they're bird
    dog type case, just the psychotic. And you don't detect it.
    After all you're not supposed to be able to detect it. And
    these next two are the only times I've ever seen them spin.
    So I've done a coordination. I've done a coordination. And
    that one, physically tired, and six, "I promise not to
    process a preclear who is improperly fed or hungry." And
    those characters only spun when they either hadn't had
    anything to eat or when they hadn't had any sleep. And that
    is the trouble with a psychotic. They can't eat, and they
    can't sleep. Those are the two things they have a great
    deal of trouble doing.
     
    And if you process one of them when he hasn't eaten and he
    hasn't slept, you'll have very bad luck indeed. I'm not
    saying you should ever process one. But I'm just saying,
    whereas, if you can get them to sleep and you can get them
    to rest, and you can get them to eat something, oddly
    enough they can be processed. They very often present no
    more problem than other preclears.
     
    People are worried about electric shock. The only reason we
    say anything about electric shock, electric shock cases
    coming in. It's not that we can't process electric shock
    cases. They've been given the old yo heave back into R-6,
    where electric shock is gorgeously advertised. The
    psychiatrist is supposed to electric shock people. He does
    in R-6. See? And the society's just dramatizing this, don't
    you see? Well it's tended to put the bird into R-6 to a
    marked degree, and the rest of it is, is he is already
    under some tremendous mental duress of some kind or
    another. And very often, still while you are processing
    him, unbeknownst to you, still under treatment. And you get
    the wildest bing-bing of mixed therapies, which is also in
    this, and so on, and there just isn't any therapy involved
    with it. It's just a method of punishing somebody.
     
    It's like the fellow who was asked, a psychotic who was
    given a prefrontal lobotomy, and he was exhibited to a
    medical convention, and somebody asked him on the side,
    "Well, what have you learned all about?" They were just talking about what a marvelous recovery it was. The guy was
    a screaming mad man, you know, all this. And the psychotic,
    who apparently hadn't been talking to anybody or other,
    said out of the corner of his mouth in reply, "I've learned to keep my mouth shut."
     
    So anyway, it is the no sleep, no rest, is the time he'll
    spin. Now if you want to really put length of time in a
    session, process a perfectly sane person who hasn't had any
    sleep for about twenty four hours. You're going to have a
    long session, because the body is a sort of an electrical
    machine anyhow, and it starts to drain down anything he can
    put out. And it's a, it's a hard fight. It's a hard fight.
    It lengthens the time in session if he's had no sleep. And
    also, if he's ever going to get into any trouble or make an
    error in the session, now he's likely to make an error in
    the session, and so is the auditor, why it goes in sort of
    deep. And it's very hard to repair. So the wise thing to do
    is to size up your PC. Has he eaten? Has he slept? "You haven't. Well very good. Come back some other day when you have."
    And that way, you keen it up, and keen out of trouble.
    Probably all the trouble you'll get into with PCs is right
    in those two.
     
    Insufficient rest and they haven't eaten.
     
    If you were to process somebody in the morning before he'd
    had his breakfast, or before he'd had anything to eat at
    all, you'd find out his processing reactions were quite
    different.
     
    Processing has something to do with the electrical currents
    of the body, or something like this.
     
    And a fellow who hasn't eaten apparently isn't doing enough
    with his oxygen or something.
     
    It's ties up with basal metabolism. And you could get very
    technical about the whole thing.
     
    Actually there's a way you can test one of these on one of
    these meters. If you ask the guy to take a long breath
    while he's holding onto the cans, and if you then get a
    long fall, he's eaten.
     
    But if he takes a long breath and lets it out, and the
    needle doesn't drop, don't audit him. He hasn't had
    anything to eat. Or he's very physically exhausted.
    Interesting, huh? It's just an interesting phenomena.
     
    It's not that the machine accurately measures basal
    metabolism or something like that, it's that it does react
    in that fashion. Did you ever see a preclear yawn and then
    see a long fall? That's why you should put yawn in your
    administration. Also cough. Naturally cough would fall
    because there's a physical convulsion with regard to it.
    But you don't often notice that the yawn produces a
    fabulous amount of surge. Well if it produces a large surge
    you know your PC has eaten and he's slept very well, in
    spite of the fact that he's yawning. There's somebody
    yawning now.
     
    OK. Those two, those two, when I see those two violated and
    so forth, my hair stands on end.
     
    Because it means that the auditor who violates those two is
    one of these fine days going to wrap a preclear around a
    telegraph pole. And one day I noted in an auditing session
    that the auditor said at the end of the session, which he'd
    apparently known all along, that the gains weren't very
    good because the preclear had only had one hours' sleep in
    the last twenty four.
     
    He'd apparently known this the whole session, and it hadn't
    affected his judgement as to what gains to expect. He
    shouldn't have expected any gains at all. But what stood my
    hair on end is the person he was processing had just come
    to my attention as once upon a time an electric shock case
    in an institution. Brother, he didn't know it, but that
    auditor was riding right along the edge of that cliff in a
    motorcycle at ninety miles an hour, the rocks falling down
    into the chasm with every spin of the wheel. Nuts! So, best
    way to stay out of trouble in that direction is, has he
    eaten? Slept? Good. Fine.
     
    Now, here's the next one. "I promise not to permit a
    frequent change of auditors." The funny part of it is that
    you will find, that after you've been through about three
    auditors on a preclear, he may very well get sort of
    nervous and queasy. And the lower the state of case the more
    nervous he's going to get. And he, well a wag just starting
    out, he would feel, if you gave him on his first sub-zero
    levels, if you gave this guy three auditors in a row he'd
    feel he'd have to get anything he was going to say off to
    them all over again. He'd have to tell each one about
    himself all over again. And it'd make a rather hideously
    anxious sort of session. "Does this fellow know me or
    doesn't he know me?" And then he would also go so far as to think maybe he had to do all the processes over again too.
    There's all kinds of kooky things happen. So insofar as
    possible, particularly the worse off the case, insofar as
    possible keep the same auditor. Now this mostly gets
    violated in review.
     
    Now let me show you this oddity. Review gets the worst
    cases. It's only the case that's messed up and in trouble
    that really gets into review, right? So he has a review on
    Monday with auditor A, Tuesday with auditor B. and Thursday
    with auditor C. Well now if it was all on the same cycle of
    action more or less, he would find he was very confused
    indeed. You've actually impeded his case gain. And once
    more, if you did this to a psychotic without knowing he was
    one and so on, he would probably spin. So it is actually
    better, in review, if you've got three auditors in review
    or something like this, or more, it is better to wait 'till
    that auditor. It is better for the review receptionist to
    see who was auditing him last time, and put him on that
    auditors' schedule, and know when that auditor's going to
    be free, and tell him to be there then. Not to backlog him,
    'cause it can be done in the same afternoon.
     
    This is, this is just good sense. But it's something you
    should caution a receptionist or somebody who isn't used to
    scheduling people, and so on, that doesn't mean anything to
    them.
     
    They just throw the folders around this way and that, see?
    It's something to caution them about.
     
    Now it's not good enough to maintain on duty one auditor
    who does one session a week, just because somebody started
    a session last year and you can't change the auditor. It's
    not a good enough reason not to give a session because that
    auditor's no longer in the organization. That's not, it's
    not good enough for that. Well what I'm talking about is,
    is a frequent. A frequent change of auditors. Every time
    the guy gets a list, why he gets some different auditor.
    He's always being audited by a different auditor. And next
    time a different auditor. You can unstabilize him. And
    actually, your processing is so swift these days that it's
    very simple to schedule the same auditors. Simple, simple,
    simple. And the only reason you've been shifting auditors
    around in a class and so on, is to give one another
    practice. And so on. And to that degree it's tolerated.
    It's actually been too much, done too much, right on this
    class.
     
    So that was number seven. Number eight, "I promise not to
    sympathize with the preclear, but to be effective." Notice
    this is changed. Now masked under that is a custom and
    habit which Saint Hill gets into periodically. Saint Hill
    does alright lots of the time. But every once in a while
    I've noticed that amongst the students, all missed
    withholds become ARC breaks. They won't pull a missed
    withhold on each other, all they'll do is run ARC breaks on
    each other. In other words, as students, sort of their
    mutual rudiments go out, don't you see? So you can...
     
    I've seen this go and happen, and then be busted up, and
    then happen again, and then go again so many times that
    it's a natural sort of phenomenon. A certain group starts
    to get sympathetic.
     
    It's what they do. See? So, they smash up each others'
    cases actually.
     
    Mazie Ann day after day has had this howling missed
    withhold from her instructor. Her supervisor, see? Day
    after day she exhibits the manifestation of an ARC break.
    Day after day the guy who is auditing her pulls an ARC
    break because he sympathizes with her, because he realizes
    that anybody should be mad at that supervisor. It's on a
    "you poor thing" basis. And will actually go on and
    continue to pull ARC breaks. But there isn't an ARC break
    in the lot.
     
    It's a missed withhold. And the person doesn't recover.
     
    Now if you start, there's a lot of this on record. If you
    start sympathizing with the PC about how badly his mother
    has treated him, or something like this, or sympathize with
    his hard lot, you're actually admitting that you can't do
    anything about it.
     
    Because the three cycles of doing something for somebody
    who is having trouble are first and foremost, be effective.
    Cure it up. Handle it. Well if you can't cure it up and
    handle it, you can make him comfortable. That's the second
    stage. If you can't cure it up or handle it you can make
    him comfortable. And if you can't make him comfortable you
    can sympathize with him.
     
    It's that low grade an action. So instead of sympathizing
    with Mazie Ann about how bad off it all is, and how she's
    being treated, and so forth and so on, be effective. Maybe
    she is being badly treated. Well don't stand around and
    sympathize with her. Make sure that the ethics is in better
    in that area. And if, if it's her, well make sure she gets
    audited and somebody pulls the missed withhold. You know,
    be effective. Don't stand around on the beautiful sadness
    of sympathy.
     
    When auditors' start that, boy, you can just kiss your
    gains goodbye. And your students no longer start making
    wins in the academy, or at the Class VI course. PC's start
    going up in smoke. Actually it's a marvelous method of
    putting somebody at effect. "Oh you poor thing." Same thing as saying, "You've been overwhelmed." Same thing as saying, "You are the effect." Do you see? "You are the effect."
     
    Alright, number nine. "I promise not to let a preclear end
    session on his own determinism, but to finish off those
    cycles I have begun." That means that if a PC blows the
    session the auditor is remiss for not finding, noting when
    it happened, the ARC break, and not handling it before it
    resulted in a blow, not noting and finding the missed
    withhold that is going to make him blow.
     
    Do you understand? Those are the only reasons a PC ends
    session on his own determinism.
     
    But the same time, that precludes that the auditors' TRs
    are going to be sufficiently smooth so that he can even be
    understood, and so that he is auditing. Remember it is an
    auditors' code.
     
    It's a very bad thing to let a PC end a session on his own
    determinism. Actually you can see an ARC break coming that
    is going to wind up in a blow, for as long as an hour and
    forty five minutes before it happens. Doesn't speak of a
    very alert auditor. Certainly it's detectable ten or
    fifteen minutes before it happens. It never happens
    suddenly. And it's a flagrant session ARC break which is
    handled with the list 1. So what the hell? I mean, the
    auditor wouldn't be very effective if some preclear blew
    session. And then when the preclear blows session, he's
    just left parked, right there. And it's either got to be
    picked up by somebody else, or something effective has got
    to be done in some other quarter, and so on.
     
    Once in a while a preclear'll walk out of session just
    because he can't stand it anymore. There are silly auditor
    errors pulled by some complete, untrained bird. Like, four
    auditing commands, which are all different, all spewed out
    in a row, with the PC trying to answer one or the other of
    them, and then refusing to tell the PC which one he's
    supposed to answer. I mean, the outness of this kind of
    thing on a very, very unprofessional co-audit level and so
    on, can be pretty kooky. And sometimes a preclear would end
    session just on a matter of self preservation. But, this
    understands that the auditor has within his power the
    ability to continue to handle and continue the session. And
    it is an auditors' code. Not an amateurs'.
     
    Ten, "I promise never to walk off from a preclear in
    session." Now this is one of the serious things that has
    happened from time to time. The auditor simply gets up and
    walks off. Leaves the preclear sitting in the middle of an
    engram or an unfinished cycle or something like that.
     
    The auditor gets up and walks off. Yes, it has happened.
     
    Eleven, "I promise never to get angry with a preclear in
    session." Now that I have seen spin PCs. And it's about the only time I've ever seen a PC spin. The auditor became
    furiously angry with the preclear in a session. He must
    have been some auditor. He was up in Spokane or some place.
    And this PC, this PC traveled a couple of thousand miles in
    a total spin to get to the organization and get the thing
    handled, and so on. But all that had happened, he'd just
    gone into a rage at her in session. She wouldn't answer the
    auditing command, and for no reason at all he went into a
    rage. ARC broke the auditor or something. But it can have
    very serious consequences.
     
    Twelve, and here's a new one. It is, "I promise to run
    every major case action to a floating needle." Gone is your old three equal comm lags, and so forth. Number twelve, "I
    promise to run every major case action to a floating needle."
     
    And thirteen, "I promise never to run any one action beyond its' floating needle." That catches it both ways and the
    middle, doesn't it?
     
    Number fourteen, "I Promise to grant beingness to the
    preclear in session." It doesn't say I don't promise to go
    on tip toe around, whenever I'm around the preclear when
    I'm out of session. Let me read that one again. Fourteen,
    "I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session." Its' modified. It's in session. But I have seen auditors
    treating preclears as though they were still in session
    when they're out of session, and I've seen preclears sort
    of hanging the auditor with the fact that they're his PC
    out of session. It's unfair and goofy in both ways.
     
    And so on. I've even gone so far as to occasionally tell a
    preclear who tried to continue the session after the end of
    session, "You are not now in session." And they sometimes blink, and say, "Yeah, that's right." I didn't say, "Bug off." But I might have. That's in session. It's in session. Sometimes you get a PC hangs himself around your neck. God
    help us.
     
    Fifteen. And this is a different and a new one. "I promise
    not to mix processes, the processes of Scientology with
    other practices, except when the preclear is physically
    ill, and only medical means will serve." Boy that is open
    to a lot of interpretation I imagine. But the net result of
    all of this is, that before you could have misunderstood it
    to the degree that the guy couldn't possibly have had his
    leg set if he was being processed. You see, an extremity of
    that character could happen. You'd better have arteries
    tied up and legs set, because bodies are rather inhuman things.
     
    It doesn't mean that when a preclear is sufficiently ill,
    and he won't recover, that you shouldn't process him at
    all. Doesn't mean because he's being given medical
    treatment you should abandon him. I'll tell you something
    funny in this particular field. The original experiments,
    way back. 1945. The original experiments on this line
    determined that function monitored structure. In other
    words, function ran structure. That was a big lesson.
    Actually, endocrine compounds like hormones and so on,
    could be given to somebody. Well that's physiological. I
    mean, you know? You can give him hormones and so on. Well
    he should have responded in some fashion to this. And then,
    after they were mentally unburdened of their problems or
    troubles, it would work. But it wouldn't work. In other
    words, the wild variable was that hormones and certain
    preparations, and by the way it was undertaken with people
    who were just released from Jap prison camps who had been
    starved during the better part of World War II in Japanese
    prison camps. And they were coming in to Oak Knoll Naval
    Hospital. And it was very difficult to handle these boys,
    because they were very badly deranged. They had been
    subjected to brutality, the like of which nobody ever heard
    of. And they weren't really treated as prisoners of war at
    all. They were just absolutely inhumanly butchered. And
    these fellows were carrying a terrific amount of mental
    stress, so that on some of them you would give them
    preparations, like amino acids, which is the acids of
    protein, so maybe they could begin to digest their food
    again. Or something like that. Wouldn't work, you know?
    Wouldn't work.
     
    Damn little to do with it. Because there's enough
    coordination there they could imagine that they were
    associated. So this, this is interesting, this is
    interesting from this standpoint, because it brings you up
    to this one. The guy's on penicillin, but his lumbosis
    won't cure up.
     
    He's got pneumonia. He actually can be on penicillin and it
    isn't handling the thing. He isn't getting any better. Or
    he's getting better very, very slowly indeed.
     
    Now he was so ill before he went on any antibiotic that he
    couldn't stir. But now that he's on the antibiotic he can
    stir around a little bit. Do you follow? Now, this magic
    can occur. Now that he can pay attention he's not running a
    high fever, or something like that. But he isn't getting
    any better. He's come up Just that little bit, and he's
    stuck rignt there. You can audit the engram and the
    penicillin works. I've seen this. I've seen this and done
    some work with this.
     
    It's the most miraculous thing you ever cared to see. I
    mean, the feilow's been hanging fire for three weeks and
    they're starting to step up the penicillin to million units
    an hour or something like this you know? He isn't getting
    any better. He doesn't improve. They continue. This is all,
    anything, you know, and then just run the engram of the
    illness, or put in his Ruds, or something like this, and
    all of a sudden, wham! All cures up in about four hours. So
    what it is is sort of a penicillin assist. It's a reverse
    flip. You say, "Well you shouldn't audit a person under
    drugs." You shouldn't audit a person under soporifics,
    which are sleep. Sleep drugs, you shouldn't audit a person
    under those that produce wild eupnoria, or whee whee hey day.
     
    You shouldn't process him when he's on that kind of drugs.
    For the excellent reason that the processing probably
    becomes part of the trip. So you try to process him later,
    why then it restimulates this, and he sets into a sore of a
    fog. It's wild. It's kind of a mess. He has sort of a
    processing engram. You know? And he's somewhat hypnotic
    when he's on this stuff. So that you say to him something
    or other something or other, he's liable to come out the
    other end of the session without remembering a single thing
    that happened in the session. That's expressly the type of
    drug.
     
    I have people came around and say, "Mazie Ann has been on
    tranquilizers for fifteen years, and does she have to come
    off her tranquilizers, because she has Petit mal seizures,
    so that you can audit her?" I often think the tranquilizers didn't do her any good, they haven't even got her
    tranquilized. Look at her, man. What the hell's the
    difference? You're talking about some tiny thing. As far as
    penicillin is concerned, or stomach pills, or something
    like that, forget it.
     
    Processing won't do anything with it or to it or apart from
    it or anything. It doesn't have anything to do with
    processing at all, because it doesn't produce an hypnotic
    state. Doesn't produce a lowered thing that leaves you at
    the end of the session with a sort of Scientology engram.
    You got it?
     
    Alright. Number sixteen is, "I promise to maintain
    communication with the preclear, and not to cut his comm or
    permit him to overrun in session." There's one for you.
    That puts it right where it lives, boy. It doesn't say
    maintain two way communication with the preclear in
    session. Nobody really understood that anyhow, 'cause that
    wouldn't make much of a session.
     
    But it says, "I promise to maintain communication with the
    preclear, and not to cut his comm or permit him to overrun
    in session." So an auditor reading that has to find the
    point where you stop his talking without cutting his comm.
    And that's an interesting one to learn. And it is a thing.
    There is an exact point where you do this. And it's very
    easily seen and very easily understood. Not very hard to.
    But if it's not pointed out in any way to the auditor, he's
    not likely to have much of a grip on it. He's liable to cut
    his comm, cut the preclears comm without knowing he's cut
    comm. You see?
     
    Alright, and permitting a preclear to run on for another
    page and a half after he has passed the F/N is just the
    best way in the world to knock it in the head.
     
    Number seventeen, "I promise not to enter comments,
    expression or enturbulance into a session that distracts a
    preclear from his case." Now, that covers about it all. You can't, not supposed to enter comments, like, "Yeah boy,
    that's sure great. Yeah, you're really doing groovy."
    Anything, you know? Expressions includes facial
    expressions. Or enturbulance. That means dropping cans,
    E-meters, auditing report pages, opening and closing
    drawers, looking for Kleenexes, and so forth, and it also
    includes having odd objects on the auditing desk. It's a
    distraction. It aiso includes making the environment safe
    enough to audit in it. So that you know that the
    environment is not going to be interruptive, 'cause that's
    going to enter an enturbulance into the session. And this
    is one of the main reasons for a false auditing report.
     
    You get an auditing report, looks OK, the preclear falls on
    his head two days later, this has been what has happened.
    That's been what happened. That's very heavily the facts.
     
    Now number eighteen. That is to say the auditor's entered,
    without putting it down, he's entered comments, expression
    or enturbulance into a session that distracts the preclear
    from his case. Alright.
     
    Number eighteen, "I promise to continue to give the
    preclear the process or auditing command when needed." I
    have seen, in actual fact, the maddest thing. I'll add to
    that in the session. "I promise to continue to give the
    preclear the process or auditing command when needed in the
    session.' Now I've seen what that exactly means, is I have
    actually seen an auditor give the orders to run back into
    an engram, and then shut up. I've actually seen this. Not
    just once. I don't know why, and I don't know what they do,
    and they haven't got any explanation for it at all. The guy
    never comes through with the second command. Never says, "Go through the incident." Something, just some freeze. You know? They freeze somehow or another. I've seen it a couple of times. And either the person just went blank, or was himself sufficiently distracted, or didn't know what he was doing, but boy, does
    it leave a preclear to scramble for himself. Two minds put
    him down there and he's got to get back on one. And it's
    definitely a very hard scene on a PC.
     
    Nineteen, "I promise not to let a preclear run a wrongly
    understood command." Now if he answered it as a wrong
    command, and then you caught it and then you corrected it,
    you'd be in violation of number one of the code. You'd now
    be evaluating. He thought he answered it right, you told
    him it was answered some other way. So therefore, it means
    that the things have to be cleared, and they have to be
    correctly cleared. You say, "What is the definition of
    that?" And the individual then gives you some definition
    which is the wrong definition, and then you turn around and
    give him the right definition, you are going at it all
    backwards and upside down. So I guess you jolly well better
    have a little old slit of paper to hand him, and have him
    read the definition. "Now this auditing command I'm going
    to give you is ARC breaks. And A is for affinity, and that
    means..." You're going to have to go into the business of
    training some preclears. It'd be nice to have a little book
    that explains all of these words, wouldn't it? This is what
    it means.
     
    Now when you catch up on your homework, preclear, I will
    audit you. Now the only difficulty with that, is after the
    guy read the book he has some F/Ns while he was reading it.
    So you'd have to check for it if that happened. But that is
    one of the major sources of no auditing gain.
     
    PC didn't know what the hell he was being asked, see? He
    had the words, and totally evaluated some other way. They
    were weighted. You know, he had the weight of the words all
    different.
     
    It's like the childs' dictionary comes up and says, "Source is the starting place." He couldn't run the process on
    that. Source is not the starting place. It would be the
    point of origin, or it would be the originator. Or where
    something was begun or dreamed up or mocked up. And then a
    guy could run it.
     
    So no source becomes a thing that doesn't have a starting
    place. "Well that's a race horse wandering around in the
    pasture." He isn't at the starting gate, don't you see?
    It's easy.
     
    OK. Twenty. So the way to get around that nineteen, on the
    wrongly understood command, and you notice it's wrongly
    understood command, is bring your preclear up right. I
    wouldn't even bother to bring him up right in session. I'd
    say, "Study all these definitions so I can audit you."
     
    Now for years we've had to educate preclears, only nobody
    ever admitted it. Have to educate him into what's going to
    happen, what he's supposed to say, what he's supposed to
    do, and so on. When you don't do this I see some of these
    preclears running around being psycho analytic subjects. I
    have actually had, I have actually had somebody sit down in
    the session and start to run a psycho analytic session on
    me. Not a psychoanalytic session, a psycho analytic I
    don't know what the hell they call it. Orgy. Wing ding.
    Actually. And they start to tell you about their, not just
    even the words they're using. "Well when I was a little
    child I did have an awful lot of trouble. We had a lot of
    hired men around and about the place, and each one of them
    violated me in turn. There was Joe, Bill, Pete, Tom, Oscar.
    Now, you see, now these... " And I'd say, "What's going on?" "Well, don't you want to know all about this, and so
    forth?" And I'd say, "No, I don't want to know anything about it. Have you ever told anybody else about these
    thing?" "Oh yes, we always talk about these things." "Who's we?" "Me and my psycho analyst." very good. Do you remember a time when you first heard that you should have some
    psycho analysis? That's very good. What was the date of
    that? Very good. Alright. Now what is the duration of the
    period? Very good." I never, I never monkey with it, boy. I never monkey with it. That is a former therapy getting in
    your road. And it would read on your seven resistive cases.
    Well you don't let anybody act like that in a session.
    Either educate them or scan it out, boy.
     
    It does take the cooperation of the preclear. I don't know
    if you've ever noticed that about auditing. Then there was
    the auditor who was the only one in session who ever got
    any gains.
     
    (Laughter.)
     
    Alright, and here's another one. "I promise to estimate the current case state of a preclear only by standard case
    supervision data, and not to diverge because of some
    imagined difference in the case." Now I'm putting wee-pons
    (weapons) into your hands. The weapons.
     
    Alright, twenty two. "I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal
    gain.' Now you know the old one of that there is never use
    Scientology for personal gain, but I'd see auditors all
    over the place getting rich and everything, and
    organization getting rich, so it can't be well interpreted.
    But this is what people worry about.
     
    Now, you will probably see somewhere over in an ethics code
    appear another one. "A person who knowingly waits until
    he's in session to divulge evidence of a crime is
    culpable." Because then you'll find nobody's ever
    confessing unless he's in session. But anyway, regardless
    of that, this is what people worry about. They worry about,
    the world worries about this. They think that if we have
    such power that we can get information out of people like
    this, they actually have had reporters and things mention
    it to me very recently. "What about all those hundred and
    thousands of cases you have at Saint Hill, and all those
    tremendous secrets you have on people, and all of this kind
    of thing?" So they worry about it.
     
    They think people are entitled to their secrets. In actual
    fact I wouldn't give you two bits for the whole collected
    lot. You know, man has a lot of crime mixed up with vanity.
    Some PC, see, that comes in, and boy he gives you this long
    criminal record, and so on. I feel like asking him
    sometimes, "Are you bragging or confessing?" You know it's the truth. Because it's not worth all that. It's not worth
    all that. Only in their zone and area it is. We have become
    more blase.
     
    Imagine, though, imagine though, in the nineteenth century
    how a fellow was made guilty his entire life because he had
    once seen a photograph of a lady who was naked to the
    waist. This corrupted his entire life. I don't know.
     
    The main thing about it is, see, the value of the withhold
    is this, and we could be jumped on for this. So I've
    included it in the auditors' code. That's the only reason
    it's there. We actually don't do anything about it.
    Actually there was one hell of a crime committed not too
    very long ago. And it wasn't owned up to, and it was
    admitted in session. Actually nothing happened to the
    fellow. He was not punished for it in any way. No. Now goes
    the continued story. He wasn't punished for it in any way,
    nobody did anything to him, and so on. Do you know that he
    went ahead and tried to knock himself off? He then tried to
    mete out his own punishment in the thing. And right this
    minute is in hospital, having undergone an operation he
    didn't need.
     
    He was getting well. And it all traces back to waiting
    until he was in session to admit to a crime, no punishment
    was given him of any kind whatsoever. It was a very heinous
    crime. No punishment was meted out. So he started meting it
    out himself. And that's what he's doing right this minute.
    And there is no other explanation to it. It's not a guilt
    complex. It's bust he's making sure he gets his throat cut
    for it, Cause he knows dog gone well it should have been.
     
    But it was handed out in session.
     
    Well the world worries about this, what happens to this.
    And I have actually seen a PC actually made very, very ill
    where his auditor suddenly trying to make him guilty in
    session for what he's doing, and I have seen a PC folded up
    for being charged for something which was divulged in a
    session. And it, after all, the auditors' code is an
    attempt to maximize case gain.
     
    We now know this, we now know that it is only where tech is
    out that ethics has to go in. You got it? You get tech in
    on the guy, why it's silly to try to get in ethics. Why?
    It's reverse end to.
     
    Alright, number twenty three, "I promise to see that any
    fee received for processing is refunded if the preclear is
    dissatisfied and demands it within three months after the
    processing, the only condition being that he may not again
    be processed or trained." Now we've had this a custom for
    some time, but it might as well appear in the auditors'
    code, because a lot of auditors are not bound by this. It's a
    wild one, actually, because the truth of the matter is, is
    every time that I have been around and somebody was talking
    about money being refunded, not on any auditing I was doing,
    but money should be refunded for the training or processing,
    or something like that. And you gave it back to them, without
    even this last qualification, that he may not be trained or
    processed again, and so on, it's very, very rare that the
    person will take it back. I've stood around and gone to a
    hell of a fuss to make sure that somebodys' money was refunded.
     
    And it was almost impossible to do, and when it was done
    and so forth, why they went around sort of hang dog and
    sheepish about it, and it made a mess. But this is
    something no other profession could do. This is something
    nobody else on the planet would dare do.
     
    The manufacturer is forced to do it with his products, but
    nobody in the field of healing has had enough answers. So
    it's a total dare.
     
    Now, if we have that in the auditors' code we can start to
    insist that it be practiced in the field of medicine. And
    we can hold it up as something wh ah is applicable to
    professional ethics in general. And it could go so far as,
    "Well if the patient dies there is no reason why the family should receive a medical bill, of course." It is a
    fantastic propaganda weapon. And the truth of the matter
    is, you're far better off to do this. You're far better
    off. If you were individually practicing and some pc comes
    in and says, "That didn't do me any good whatsoever.'
    You're probably practicing on somebody who is PTS, who is
    connected up, messed up, she or he is a seven resistive
    case to begin with, they're not going to do you any good at
    all anywhere. The best thing to do is just promptly say,
    "Alright. Sign this waiver that you're not supposed to be
    trained or processed again anyplace. Good. Here is your
    dodo." Right now. Bong. You find the person's, "Wait a minute."
     
    In the first place they do it sometimes just trying to get
    even with you. They got a missed withhold or something of
    this sort, so they're trying to get even with you somehow.
    And they don't mean it. The number of people who would
    accept their money back on the condition they were never
    trained or processed again are so few, but it is not
    something another profession could do. They wouldn't dare.
    All the money'd have to be returned. You actually can throw
    that down the throats of people legislatively. "When other
    professions are willing to adopt a clause of this
    particular character, then they can talk about being
    ethical." Until then they had better not talk about us.
    Defense line.
     
    And if all auditors stood back of that as a defense line it
    would be a very good one indeed.
     
    Now, twenty four, "I promise not to advocate Scientology
    only to cure illness or only to treat the insane, knowing
    well it was intended for spiritual gain." That's actually
    not to get anybody off the hook and not to agree with any
    laws or anything else. It's, boy do you go in the soup when
    you try to go any other distance than for gain for the
    individual himself.
     
    OK, and number twenty five is, "I promise to cooperate
    fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and
    Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding
    the ethical use and practice of the subject, according to
    the basics of standard tech." That should straighten out a
    lot of it.
     
    So that is the new auditors' code, good, bad or
    indifferent. Right now there is a code of reform which is
    being put together, but that would be the code of a
    Scientologist. And I don't know what results are coming in
    on this on a code of reform, but it is a very interesting
    project which will probably be adventured upon again
    somewhere up the line. And the project is writing every
    prominent man, or every professional man in the entire
    community, giving him a description of Dianetics and
    Scientology, of the various things it has done and
    oppositions it has met, and what it can do, and asking him
    for his advice in the usages to which it could be placed,
    and asking him for any recommendations he'd have as a
    reform of its' practice. And there's some fantastic number
    of these things being mailed out. There's about, oh I don't
    know, there's about three million, or something like that
    in the United States, and some vast number in other areas.
    And the net result of all of this will eventually be
    codified into a code of reform. But it will be the code of
    a Scientologist, or in practices or organizations. And very
    doubtful if anything would be added to the auditors code.
    It just sort of blows the criticism that's been going around.
     
    And at any time you find the subject's under criticism it
    is a very good approach. Say, "OK. What do you want changed?" Nobody can complain about that.
     
    The auditors' code which you have been going by, of course
    is fundamentally correct. And as you see it has not
    actually been invalidated, it's been put in a different
    form. And it has been brought up to date. So that the
    floating needle, and so on, is included in that.
     
    Alright, so much for that. I hope you agree wist that. I...
    Very good.
     
    Now there is, it's one thing to freeze a subject. A guy by
    the name of Augustus, whose real name was I think Octavius,
    whose real name was probably Bastardus, or... , who was
    kicking around about the time of Cleopatra or something.
    Anyhow, he was all mixed up with some jerk, some epileptic
    by the name of Caesar...  It's all sort of confused in mind
    at the particular time, because I wasn't in Rome at the
    time. But this bird Augustus, he called himself, which
    meant top dog or something, he froze the boundaries, he
    froze the boundaries of the Roman Empire. And he said,
    "Rome hereafter must not expand." And he's the man who killed Rome.
     
    All you have to do is say in this universe something may
    not expand, and from that particular moment on, it
    stagnates and will eventually fail and fall. Which was a
    woeful fact. Actually he said, "Every eldest son had to
    serve in the footsteps of his father." So that nobody could get out of any profession his father was in. The boundaries
    of the empire must not expand any further than they are,
    but we will hold it at that point. Of course, immediately
    it started to crumble. He had a lot to say.
     
    It is a very, very bad thing to totally freeze something in
    this particular universe. Now I'll point out to you that
    what we know, however, we still know - And that is that we
    know the basics as we come up the line. It is absolutely
    amazing how little this auditors' code has changed in
    fifteen years. But here is this minor change. It is adapted
    to the increase of technology.
     
    The net result of an unchanging absolutely never to be
    varied situation is, of course, stagnation.
     
    But something can continue all the way from standard
    basics. In other words, you can have certain standard
    basics and develop on top of those basics. More can be
    found out about what you already know.
     
    We have an already workable path. That path is very
    workable. It is very swift. I reserve, and I wish to
    impress this upon a Class VIII student, I reserve the right
    to release further advances of technology. I can assure you
    that they are not going to invalidate the things you
    already know now, because everything which has been
    developed has been developed forward along the exact lines
    which you see them in now.
     
    But let me give you an example. This morning I was doing
    the research on 8, and I was very fascinated with a
    horrible circumstance whicn took place. And I immediately
    checked it up with two other auditors that I respect on the
    ship. And I checked it up with these auditors as to whether
    or not they'd ever really seen this phenomena. And all of a
    sudden an explanation fell out of the hat about something,
    and I found out they had both been wondering about this also.
     
    And I collided with it, because somebody sent me a new
    E-meter and it is not a new E-meter in design, it is simply
    that somebody changed the manufacturer. And the new
    manufacturer, before he can release or before they could
    accent this meter, I of course have to give a pass on it.
    Well I had actually already given a pass on it. I hadn't
    been able to detect any vast difference in this meter. But
    I had noticed that the needle of the meter was a tiny bit
    thinner, and probably the movement of the meter itself
    might have been a little bit smaller than in other meters.
    But I had not noticed anything more than the fact that the
    meter was very lively. It was lively. It's more lively than
    the original Mark IV.
     
    So, I hadn't paid any attention to this, and yesterday my
    meter ran down, or had to get charged up or something like
    this, and somebody put this other meter, which is the
    prototype. It's not the meter which I would normally use
    anyway. It was the prototype. And they put up the prototype
    on my desk for my use, for checking something out. And what
    do you know? I turned the thing on, and I checked over something, and I thought you know, that should be a release point of that
    action. And I got an R/S! I got a wild rock slam. Now I
    looked at this meter again, and it wasn't tuned up in any
    peculiar way. But I suddenly recognized why I hadn't been
    aware of it before I'd turned it on and used it, that it
    had l terribly faint, light, very, very thin needle, which
    is off pattern, don't you see? And, so I looked at this,
    and I thought, "What am I looking at here? Why should I
    R/S? This is sort of mad." And so I said, "I better check out if there's been an invalidation, because R/S,
    invalidation, they go together." So I checked out, and sure enough there was a tremendous read on an invalidation. And
    I thought, "That's really remarkable. But if it's a
    tremendous read on the invalidation, why doesn't it R/S?"
    So I went and synthesized again the exact point and
    situation on the track which had made it R/S. And it held
    for a moment and then it R/Sed again. And I suddenly
    realized that invalidation would read, of course. It was a
    float. It was a floating needle. It was a floating needle
    and the invalidation was I'd invalidated a floating needle.
    But on this very, very light meter, with this very light
    needle, with my case section where it is, I've stopped
    floating. I R/S. I get a hair a dial wide R/S. And what it
    is is a reverse rocket read. The R/S begins with a rocket
    read which is backwards from right to left. And I get a
    backwards rocket read as it pops.
     
    It pops like that, and then pops the other way. And that's
    all it is. It's just a, it's quite remarkable, but it took
    a different meter to demonstrate the thing. And so I asked
    one of the other auditors and he said, "Oh yes." And I said, "What cases have you seen something like this on?" And one was a 3, and one was an OT 6. An OT 3, an OT 6.
     
    Alright. Now the datum that suddenly emerges here, this
    meter was tuned up rather more sensitive than meter
    normally is, and was in itself a much livelier meter. So if
    you were to turn up a standard meter to maybe one hundred
    and twenty eight on its' sensitivity switch knob, and then
    to tune it up to four or five, or something in that
    particular range, in the OT sections I think you will find
    out that you get your floats become reverse rocket reads.
    And if you'll watch this carefully there won't be any doubt
    in your mind about a float, in the upper sections.
     
    Now to give you a little more data on this, found out
    recently that auditors didn't seem to know that after an
    individual was clear that his thoughts read on a meter. And
    you notice it's only recently that we have had to do
    anything about this. The thoughts read on the meter. You
    ask the fellow some question on the meter. All he says, you
    know, on a green form. And all he says is, to himself is,
    "No I don't think that I... " Says this to himself. And you get a long surge, pow! Now an auditor who didn't know this,
    but in auditing a pre-OT, he would think the thing read. So
    actually what you have to do on anybody above clear, is you
    have to be wary of the fact, is their thinks read no matter
    what they think, it'll read. Particularly if they're
    thinking against something. If they're thinking a negative
    of some kind or another, up against the bank, or against
    the auditor, or against the meter, or something like this,
    you will get a read.
     
    So that makes a case above clear, actually some cases down
    at grade four, this lively. But very few. But a lot of
    auditors would just keep on buying this, you see, from
    clear on up, that every time they had a read that was a
    positive. You could wreck cases that way, so we're having
    to teach people how to get in suppress and false. And
    because auditors have done this in the past, a good thing
    to get in, false reads. And it cleans up a lot of cases,
    right? Alright, now we have had a case or two in the upper
    OT sections recently, who have appeared before the examiner
    with a wide, wild R/S. And to show you how odd this is, we
    have somebody who was comm eved because he R/Sed on
    something. And in no case was it an R/S. There is such a
    thing as an R/S. But it is not what we think it is.
     
    A float at a certain high case level, with a certain tune
    up of sensitivity, actually behaves at an accelerated line
    it looks like an R/S. Now the least you could tell about
    it, even with an ordinary meter, is the person should start
    rocket reading, and reverse. This is a sort of a pop. The
    needle pops backwards from right to left. And you can
    usually really tell if you tune up your meter right, why
    your floats become absolutely unmistakable, because they
    begin with a pop.
     
    Now as the guy goes on up the lines this phenomenon begins
    to increase. And if your meter is already set up to read
    this pop, why if you were auditing somebody at OT 7 or OT
    8, I can assure you that his float would be a rock slam.
     
    Well, in supervising your folders, and so on, I have
    learned some new things, and so on. I'll continue to learn
    them, I'll continue to publish them, and I'll continue to
    make sure that you receive them. I don't expect a
    tumultuously changing future. I do expect a very successful
    one.
     
    And as we move it on up in the line up, we will undoubtedly
    have things which we notice, which can be incorporated. And
    when they work out uniformly to the better good of all
    cases, they will themselves become standard tech.
     
    Very good? Thank you very much.
     
    **************************************************
     
     
    
     

    Track this thread for me

    Subscribe to alt.religion.scientology
    Mail this message to a friend
    View original Usenet format
    Post Reply

    << Previous in search   ·   Next in search >>

    Search Discussions
      For a more detailed search go to Power Search
    Search only in: People >> Humanities >> Theology
    All Deja.com
    Search for:
    Search  messages

     Arts & Entertainment   Automotive   Computing & Tech   Health   Money 
     News   People   Recreation   Sports   Travel 
    SHOPPING - Yellow Pages - Long Distance Deals - Free Stuff - Trade with Datek - Go to Gigabuys! - GET IT NOW @ NECX - FREE downloads! - Get FREE Health Info@drkoop.com - Apartments.com - eBay Auctions

    Copyright © 1999 Deja.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Trademarks · Terms & Conditions of Use · Site Privacy Statement.

    Advertise with Us!  |  About Deja.com