6809C27 Class VIII TAPE 4



STANDARD TECH DEFINED



And this, the last time I looked, was the twenty seventh... 

Thank you very much. Thank you.



Very polite of you - The last time I looked this was the

twenty seventh of September, AD eighteen, and this is

lecture what number? (Four.) What do you know? Lecture four.



The reason I'm numbering these is so that nobody can come

along and cut them all out.



Probably the; expect it some years from now, that somebody

will have figured it all out. It would be much better if we

had the lectures on case supervision taken out, because if

auditors are allowed insufficient latitude for their own

imagination it cramps self determinism, ruins cases, but it

cramps self determinism. And you can expect sometime in the

future that the thing is not, well it actually isn't a good

thing. The case supervisor, he actually has to have

latitude when we're getting, you see, and the auditor

should have tremendous latitude, because it'll give him too

many case gains, and stuff like that, you know? Qual income

is down. Ever since we started this standard tech Qual

income has gone out the bottom. So, the best thing to do is

to subtract lecture three, seven and nine, don't you see,

from the lectures. You know.



Many ways of subtracting them, such as simply tearing them

up. But somebody would at least know something was missing.



Now we have something of that order coming up on your

bulletins. The truth of the matter is, is I'm going over

bulletins at this particular time, so that all bulletins as

you see then, as of this moment, are in actual fact being

edited down into a standard tech package. But that doesn't

change anything. And if anything is in any way changed it

will be to the basis of bringing it to an earlier

standardization. And it will simply be a correction of some

out line.



We apparently have forty or fifty bulletins in the line up

which have been written by other people than myself, and

these occasionally contain errors. The bulletins which

you've got are not in this category, I am sure.



But to give you some sort of an idea of it, we in actual

fact had...  There have been two changes in the standard

processes, both changes to the original. I didn't... they'd

been changed. One of those are the commands of ARC

Straightwire, which are being issued to you directly and

immediately, and the original commands of ARC Straightwire

are those commands which crack neurotic cases. And

somebody, with some enthusiasm, along the line someplace,

cut off the last half of the command in each case. But

that's a real case cracker the way it is originally.



"Recall something that is really real to you" is the proper

command, and it's never been otherwise. But people with

enthusiasms edit this material, and every time it has been

edited the material and workability has to a marked degree

been lost. All of the listing tapes, although there were

lots of tapes called listing tapes, on the Saint Hill

Course all of the key listing tapes and the key listing

bulletins were removed from the Saint Hill Course during

the last two or three years. And that's why you guys don't

know nothing about listing. You come to me here.



I wouldn't give you a penny for what you know about

listing. That's a fact. If you can't ratta tat tat, ratta

tat tat off the laws of listing, popety popety pop, and

know that those are the laws.



Those are the laws. There aren't any other laws. There are

no exception to these laws. These are the laws of listing.

Those are the laws of listing. That is how it is done. It

isn't done any other way. There are no exceptions of any

kind whatsoever. Any list is listed that way. Do I make my

point? So don't ask me any more questions about listing or

I'll bite your heads off.



Anyhow, asking me whether or not the lists of four are done

in this way. Now. There is a thing which isn't a list,

which is actually a repetitive process. It's what's been

overrun. It doesn't go to an item. You're asking, in actual

fact the PC, what has been overrun. And you rehab each read

you get. It's a repetitive process. You write it down so

you know what you're rehabbing.



But as far as listing and nulling is concerned it's a

non-nulled item. As far as listing and nulling is concerned

there are no variables. And it's the one thing that the

bulk of you who are studying this course don't know. You don't 

know that you're dealing with an invariable science. It has 

no variabilities. It is absolutely clank. You have to begin 

by finding this out. If you don't find this out you will never 

make a Class VIII auditor. It's a marvelous discovery.



You are in the process of discovering Scientology. That's

right. Now let's take it up from the beginning. What does

the word Scientology mean? If there seems to be a little

bitterness in that...  Scio is the word for truth. And scio

turns in to scien, in that form, which means truth.



And ology is the study of. Truth, study of. Now if you're

studying truth how the hell can there be a variable?



Truth, by definition, is what is. There is a direct

relationship to the amount of variable in a persons' life,

and complications which are untruths and his state of case.



A wag lies by the words and music. Lying is a way of life.

"How are you today?" "I feel fine." "You look great Mabel."

"What a pretty hat you have, I've always liked it." You

listen to some of these birds, they're so bad off because

they've just been done in. But they aren't, haven't been

done in, they have been doing something in. Don't you see,

that is a level of truth. So that an OT comes up the line

toward a truth. And the more truths there is in him the

higher his case level. By direct proportion.



So a fellow comes in, he's lying in his teeth. Lie, lie,

lie, alters alter, alter, vary, vary, vary, quibble,

quibble, quibble, nya nya nya, booboo dee dee, boo boo. You

have a direct, immediate index of his case level. He's

nuts. And this goes down and expresses itself as delusion.

The delusion of insanity. The delusion of a hop head. The

delusion of a Callagan. Or a Robinson. "Oh my god the

Scientologists are all after me!" Pffft. My contempt.



These characters, we weren't after them. They practically

had to take taxi cabs, airbuses, helicopters, walk through

mud, struggle through storm, anything else, to get on our

track. We didn't even hear of them. We didn't even know

anything about them. We couldn't have cared less if we had.

We aren't in any line of country they have anything to do with.



The guy who is stuck on the track someplace, the Martians

are after him. Fighting shadows.



Fighting things that haven't anything to do with him. Wars,

world wars, whereby the Germans says the English are

horrible, and the English say the Germans are horrible. And

the Germans say the English are trying to conquer the

world. And the English say the Germans are trying to

conquer the world. And Germans say the English are

slaughtering babies, and the English say the Germans are

slaughtering babies. The amount of truth there is in

connection with any war man has ever fought is

undiscoverable with the worlds' most powerful microscope.



So in the gravest insanities you get the greatest untruth.

So the road is a road of truth. At seven there was a step

known as the incredibles. As you go up the line you

discover the incredibles.



Things that happened to the individual which are true, but

not believable. The incredibles. That is one of the points

of auditing. Stripping out the incredibles off the time track.



Now you know how much you'd be believed if you walked into

the barber shop and says, "Well, I put ten cents down on

Sky Rover in the third race, and he paid off two million to

one, and I made a couple of hundred thousand dollars, and

my wife thought of the idea in a dream, and so that's why I

did it. You know? Only it happens to be true. But you can't

believe it because the odds are too great against it, see?



I had trouble with this when I was a kid. I was everyplace

and anyplace and into anything, and all over the planet at

the time, when people were not traveling all over the

planet. And I eventually got to a point where I couldn't

talk about my adventures. I actually hit a level of untruth

of minimizing what I had done and been. That's the

reduction of incredibles.



There are various ways by which something can be, or seem,

untrue. Various ways.



So anyway, Scientology is well named. It is the road to

truth. It is a study of the truth. And total truth is total

power. And when the guy hasn't got any lies left in him

he's OT. And all the mechanics of OT work out too. So the

subject is very, very well named.



And that's what Scientology means. It's the study of truth,

to which could be added the technology of achieving truth.

And I have a list here, whereby several students don't know

what standard tech is. Don't know what the word standard

means. Haven't any idea. Now if somebody doesn't know that

there is a subject called Scientology, which is a main line

subject which has a certain number of hair line processes

which make up a direct route, he needs an academy course.

He shouldn't be here. Those are brutal words.



A science is a body of truths. A technology is a body of

truths. Now somebody who can't confront action, or

something like that, thinks a truth would be a datum of

some kind or another. Well a truth can also be an action.

And the road through all of the untruths of a person, from

all the way south to all the way north has been mapped. It

exists. It has been on a chart for years. There have been

bulletins which announced its' processes. The doingness of

those processes are exact, precise. There aren't two ways

to do them. There is one way to do them.



And that is what you are here learning. And if you can't

learn that basic fundamental you might as well quit now.



You are not learning this wide subject of philosophy.

You're not learning every student's got a chance to think

his own opinion right now. You're not learning that right

now. You're learning the technical application of exactly

how it is done, exactly to whom it is done, exactly and

precisely the steps and actions taken to an exact, precise

results And that's what you're learning. And you haven't

anything to do with how many needles sit on the head of an

angel.



Now case supervision, you were given some folders to case

supervise. Then doing a case supervision of them, you

decided what was wrong with the PC. Which is a direct

violation of the Auditors' Code. Evaluative case

supervision will be your downfall. It comes to this: He

couldn't or didn't make this grade. Your job is to make

sure he made the grade.



Now what's wrong with the PC is he hasn't made that grade.

The major gains of the PC are always the next grade. You

won't ever get any gains on a PC compared to making the grade.



All your job is is to start the PC in at the beginning of

the assembly line and make sure that he's correctly run to

the end of the assembly line. And that's your whole job.

And when you do a case supervision, don't ever let me hear

you say again to the end of your career an evaluative

statement about a PC. Because you don't know.



You do certain, basic, standard actions. Basic action.

Standard action. And the case falls apart.



You have to know your stable data, boy, you have to know

your stable data so you can mutter it in your sleep.



You look into one of these folders. If you know your

business you instantly will look at a list.



The list was complete. The PC was given his item. The

question read to begin with. Didn't dead horse. You have to

know data like this. Dead horse question didn't read to

begin with.



Don't list a question unless it reads. Question didn't

read, don't list it. Question read, no item found on the

list. Pfff! It's either incomplete or it needs to be

extended. It needs to be extended or the item's been

suppressed. You find there's a little list, four things,

which you do with a list. Very standard. Elementary.

Elementary.



Now let's go into the definition of the word standard. I

want to put you in a good frame of mind now. I'm not mad at

you at all. There's no animosity.



Standard. The word standard as taken from Rodell's synonym

finder. The word standard. And it says here it is

"Universal, accepted, common, normal. Of recognized

excellence or authority.



Final, definitive, authoritative, conclusive, reliable,

preferred, classic, timeless, accepted, orthodox, staple,

official, cathedral, doctrinal, ultimate, canonical and

authentic." That's the word, the synonyms of the word standard.



And now we have the Oxford Illustrated dictionary. And we

will read here the definition of the word standard. I want

to call to your attention that my messenger looked these up

for me. The word standard. Standard. It's a distinctive

flag. It's a banner with royal arms. It's a flag of cavalry

regiment. It's a rallying principle. One of the meanings of

standard is carrying a banner forward.



Now. It's a weight or measure to which others conform or by

which the accuracy of others is judged. It's a legal

proportion of weight, as in fine metal and alloy in gold

and silver coin. It's a degree of excellence, which is the

meaning which we have, required for a particular purpose.



It's a thing recognized as model for imitation. Recognized

as possessing the merit of authority.



Degrees of proficiency. Class studying to reach this.



Let's take another dictionary. And this is the universal

English dictionary. We're getting up in weight here. My

messenger had a hard time lifting these off to look them up

for you. Actually, our Sea Org messengers are very proud of

themselves. They're moving up toward a ten thousand word

vocabulary, which is exactly twenty times that of the

average college student.



Do you know the average college student knows five hundred

words? It's true.



Once more, it's a banner, standard, a banner. Hearing a

royal or national arms. Flown only by the sovereign. Flag

of the cavalry regiment. Etcetera, etcetera of gold. Style,

mode, type, accepted, recognized by convention, within a

community, at a given time, as a criterion of what is best

in speech, behavior, conduct, action, face, morality, to

which we add technology. What is the best.



And now we will pick up a bigger dictionary. This is

Websters' Third International dictionary.



It is a couple of volumes, because they couldn't get all

the words into one. And it's in India paper in microscopic

print. And my messenger has very good eyesight to find it

at all.



Standard. It's a rallying place, a flag to mark a rallying

place, a pole or a spear bearing some conspicuous

object,...  Man, we haven't even gotten down to anything

else. A definite level or degree of quality that is proper

and adequate for a specific purpose. The word standard. The

word standard. It means a definite level or degree of

quality that is proper and adequate for a specific purposes

And that one you can star rate. Got it?



And now we will look up the word technology. I don't want

anybody with any misunderstoods here. I haven't looked

these up, my messenger looked these up for me.



Technology is a scientific study of practical arts. It's

practical arts collectively, terminology of a particular

art or subject. Technique is manner of execution or

performance. Manner of execution or performance.



I'm gonna get this big dictionary up here. And it says

here, technique is a systematic and special method employed

in carrying out some particular operation. Skill in

practical acquaintance with the methods of some particular

art, specialized procedure, operation and the like. That's

a technique.



Now. Technology: Science of the mechanical industrial arts

contrasted with the fine arts.



Technologist as student is one who is versed in technology.



And, let's get this big one back here. I don't know whether

I can find it on this page or not, it's so microscopic.

There is technique, techno, technology. Is the terminology

of a particular subject, it's the technical language. It's

the science of application of knowledge to practical

purpose. Applied science. The science of the application of

knowledge to a practical purpose.



Applied science. Have you got it?



Now, there's no animosity connected with this at all. This

is perfectly friendly. But Scientology has a very definite

body of technical application, which is the only body of

technical application in all of the data of Scientology.

There are not two ways to do anything in Scientology.



In 1966 this was totally summated. And it is time that

auditors ceased to be airy-fairy about it.



Going up the line right now we have the fact that

Scientology, applied as you are being trained to apply it,

produces 100% result. And applied with the airyfairy, "I

don't know what we're doing. duh duh duh duh, I have lots

of opinions on this subject. I think I'd better case

supervise; I think this guy must have missed withholds."

After they got five items reading on the list, and it was

four pages long, he threw the cans at the auditor.

Obviously he has missed withholds.



Scientology, mis-applied, applied contrary to standard

tech, produces back fires, that are not the pcs' fault.

Standard tech is entirely under the control of the case

supervisor and the auditor.



The preclear, the pre-OT, is entirely under the control of

the case supervisor and the auditor.



Just so you know that well, the preclear doesn't "have

missed withholds which is why the session failed." Be's

entirely under the control of the case supervisor and the

auditor. And if he didn't make it it is the fault of the

case supervisor and the fault of the auditor. Nobody elses!

There is no escape, safety valve. If he went out and got

drunk and fell on his head between sessions, why the hell

didn't you audit him fast enough so he didn't have a

chance? It's time we took responsibility for the guy in the

chair, because properly case supervised you get one zero

zero per centium. One hundred cases out of one hundred

cases. If you don't get it you're flubbing.



The old timer, he got pretty good. Dianetic auditing and so

forth, they got about 50%. They got about a 50%

improvement. As technology advanced, and as it was expertly

applied, the percentage advanced. 22 1 / 2 % of all cases

will get well if you pat them on the head, if you show them

a green door, if you put an ice cream cone in their hand,

if you give them sugar pills, if you simply give them

advice, 22 1 / 2 % of all the people that come in the line

up will get well.



So the zero percentage is 22 1 / 2 . You gonna get 22 1 / 2

anyhow. Right, wrong, upside down or backwards, you're

gonna get twenty two and a half. So, you get one of these

22 1 / 2 , you run a squirrel process and he says he got

well so you think that squirrel process must have been... 



Bah, Nonsense.



Now. You can push this up the line. And you want to know

where the psychiatrist is, and so forth, he doesn't even

get one percent. He's doing 22 1 / 2 percent damage. That's

how you measure it. And auditor's a very bad auditor you

get less than 22 1 / 2 percent. He expect that in any event.



Now. The skill and the excellence of the technology, and

excellence of its' application, the standardness of it will

push the percentage up. And through the years it went to

higher percentages, and higher percentages, and higher

percentages. And you, as a Class VIII, are looking at the

per centium of one zero zero per centium. Any thing that

falls below 100 percent is because somebody goofed, boy.

The case supervisor or the auditor. Somebody goofed.



Now it may take you two or three sessions. It may take you

a repair before you can execute the final action. You may

have been fed a bum datum by the auditor and then, as case

supervisor, called for a wrong action. And then you'll find

this out fast enough because the guy didn't come out of it,

so then you've got to go back and find out what it is. You

send the preclear to the examiner, you get him run on a

seven button assessment, the seven different types of

things. You can get him run on a general assessment form, a

green form, an L4A, various things for various purposes.

You find out, you put it to rights, and then you get your

100. It isn't 100 percent one session. But if you go for

two or three goofed up sessions followed by four or five

repairs, which are goofed up repairs of goofed up sessions,

and then you repair the repair of the repair, and so forth,

you're not going to get your 100 percent.



But out of the cases which pass beneath your nose you had

better, you had better, better, better, get one zero zero.

Because the technology is there with which to achieve it.

And if you don't know it's there we'll put you in an

academy someplace to learn some of your basics.



Because the road is a very simple road. And the most

difficulty you are having right at this moment is asking

these marvelously complicated questions of yourselves. You

see a table sitting in the middle of the room. I am telling

you it is a table, it is sitting in the middle of the room.

And you say, "Let's see. Should it go to the antique side?

How far is it? How long has it been sitting there? What are

the ramifications and complications in the material of the

table? Is the table really substantial? If an elephant sat

down on the table, would it stand up?" I'm just trying to

tell you, for god sakes, there's a table sitting in the

middle of the room. There is a table sitting in the middle

of the room. And that is the total is-ness of it.



I tell you that you do the Ruds to F/N. Therefore, you

start in with an ARC break, you got a present time problem,

you check for missed withhold, and so somewhere along there

she's gonna F/N. If you know anything about your TRs at all

you really can't miss. So it F/Ns. Your rudiments are now

done, so the PC is set up to be audited. Now you audit what

the main body of the session was supposed to be, which is

some major action. You complete the major action to F/N,

and maybe one, two, three major actions. You complete them

all. And you end off the session on an F/N. And if your TRs

are very good he'll come back into the next session still

with an F/N. If you cannot get an F/N on your rudiments

you, of course, do a G/F, a green form, and you get an F/N

on that. And that is setting the case up. 



And looking at your folders you've been trying to get case 

gains out of green forms. Well sure, somebody feels better 

on a green form. You're trying to get case gains. Trying to 

solve cases. What the hell are you trying to solve cases for?

They're no problem. They're a problem to C/S, they're not a

problem to an auditor. You do the usual and the case solves

itself. It's too easy. It is too simple. And your complex

figure-figure-figure-figure-figure, oh my god,

figure-figure-figure-figure-figure is just all over your

god damned plate. And you're sitting there saying, "I

wonder what the PCs thinking next, and so forth, and

waff-waff-waff and doo doo doo thhthhhthh." Relax.



You start in with, "Oh I wonder what's this? Look at this!

Christ! Look what's happened! Oh my god! I'd better do

something about this." You've got a C/S right in front of

you, perhaps.



Your C/S. And it says PC-pow, PC-pow,

PC-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow. You do it. And if your C/S knows

his business, or if you're the C/S you already knew the TA

was at six and a half. And you simply took it down, that's

all. Now what; why would the TA be at six and a half? You

go back to the folder, you'll find out fast enough. The guy

went through five blow downs on listing one of the 5A

processes. And the auditor gave him the last blowing down

item. Power's supposed to be listed to the first blow down.

If you list it to more than one blow down you're gonna be

in trouble there. And the PC after the session might feel

great for an hour, he might feel great for two hours. But

sometime between then and the next two or three days he is

going to feel like hell. You violate the rules of standard

tech and the PC feels like hell. You follow the rules of

standard tech and the PC feels good. And that's all there

is to it.



Some day, if you get through this course alive, someday you

will look back on your beginning think as completely

ridiculous. You will be sitting there, knocking cases off

left and right, pongety, pongety, pongety, pongety, bung,

bang. Hundred percent, hundred percent, plongety-bing,

plongety-bing, plongety-bing. "God damn that auditor. He

slipped in that session.. I'll write your C/S, repair this

wong, wong, bong bong." And there she goes.



Hundred percent, hundred percent. Pocketa, pocketa,

pocketa. And you look back at your earlier auditing

career...  I draw a curtain over your thoughts.



But, did you ever see somebody walk on a stage and play a

pianer? Some fellow walks on a stage and he plays the

piano. Mario Fenninger walks in, shoots his cuffs, sits

down, bow-wow! You know that piano really goes, boy, that

piano really goes. Now you can say it looks very simple to

Mario Fenninger. That's right. He knows he's supposed to

strike certain keys and he gets certain results. There

isn't any other airy-fairy think about it. Only he knows

where the keys are better'n any body else. And that's a

Class VIII auditor. Same piano.



And you see some academy auditor. He comes in and, wonder

where C is, and where, where, where's the lid to this

thing? You know? Lid. Well, I got the lid open. Now let's

see. What are these black and white things? I'll look it up

in the instruction book over here. Black and white

things...  keys. Those are keys. Very good. Now you expect

him to play Moonlight Sonata, huh?



It's a piano. But it isn't any where near as difficult as a

piano to learn how to play. The biggest hump is learning

that it's a very simple action. It's not a careless action.

Terribly simple.



You go out and you see an expert marksman. And he throws

the rifle up to his shoulder, booms Bulls' eye. Bulls' eye.

You say, "Gee, that's easy." And you go out and you look

for where the trigger is, and you look where the bolt is,

where the magazine is, and you look down there to see if

it's loaded, and you take it up and this damn strap's

getting in your road somehow or another. My god, you're so

damned introverted looking at the weapon you never get a

chance to look at the target. And the reason most auditors

never see what's going on in the PC is the auditor doesn't

really even know how to handle an E-meter.



He sits down. "I wonder if I've got the sensitivity right.

I've got to...  I've got to write this down." Never mastered

the art of handling the tone arm of the meter with his

theme while he's writing down the auditors' report. "And,

let's see, what do I say next?" Same thing. He just doesn't

know his tools well enough.



You take somebody walks in with a camera. Got a camera?

Be's a ruddy amateur. If he's a ruddy amateur, if he looks

at this camera, and he takes a good look at it, and he

says, "Where's the lens? Where do I put the film in? What

is this? What's this glass in front? Oh, that's the lens,

yes." And, "I wonder what all these rings are? Well, I'll

look it up in the instruction book here. Oh, that is the

lens. Now let's see, how do I get this camera open to get

some film in it?", and so on. Finally opens it up, finally

gets some film in it, loaded some how or another. Then he's

going around, "Where's the trigger, where's the trigger,

let's see, where's the trigger? Now I'm going to take a

picture." And god damn, he's so involved in trying to

handle this piece of stuff that he is completely unfamiliar

with, that, honest to Pete, the pictures he takes are a

complete, stinking disgrace. He thinks he's doing good to

be able to point it horizontal.



Now we take some guy, he's got a piece of camera, he's

familiar with cameras. He can take this thing and he flips

the back of it open, he throws the film in while talking to

you about something or other. Sets it up and so forth. Now

he looks around, and there's the picture. He hasn't got any

attention on that camera, boy. There's the picture. So... ,

so here, powie. He can see over there, because his

attention isn't introverted here. Standard tech then

requires that one know his tools, know the laws of the

game, know the correct action so instinctively and so

instantaneously that he never has to think a thing to do

it. His attention's on the PC. PC gives indicator sixteen,

the auditor does what he's supposed to do. Just think.

Well, what do you know?



Pc's talking about an ARC break but it isn't reading. Now,

he knows his technology sufficiently well and he knows the

PC talking about an ARC break that isn't reading, it's a

missed withhold. ARC breaks that don't read are missed

withhold. Standard datum. You don't say, "I think, you

know, actually Ron said something about... when the thing

didn't read." Nuts! See? It's bonkers. What, what's all

this think and cross think, and wonder and so forth? If you

hold up your hand and turn your hand over palm up, and then

turn your hand over palm down, do you know what you'd had

to do as a thetan? If you could think of the number of

channels and muscles and nerve centers and things, and

this, and so on which it took to turn your hand right side

up and upside down, you would go practically bonkers. And I

assure you you wouldn't be able to do it.



You ask somebody who is a ballerina. You can actually throw

off a ballerina who is not quite on the ball, not quite.

She puts a good show on, and so on, but she's not quite

there. If you say, "How do you balance on your toe?" How do

you balance on your toe? Now if she's on the ball she'd

look at you and say, "Why, you balance on your toe of

course, you idiot."



The great dancer is totally simple. You ask some artist,

"How should you paint this picture? What should you do?"

Well if he's sort of only painting reactively and he

doesn't know his business he's knocked into a cocked hat 

instantly. He's knocked right off of it. But if he really 

knows his business he just says, "Ho hum," and goes on with 

his work. "Why, why do you put green like that? Why do you 

put a stripe of green like that?", and so forth. And he'd 

look at you and say, "What? Looks better."



Now you ask some flooky mug, maybe an art teacher some

place. And you say, "Now why do you put green across the

picture?" "Well, this gives the collateral effect to

extensive distance, and balances the color combination,

because in actual fact the color wheel, if you see it over

here, has complimentary color. You see it's green. And if

you don't put green there then you'll get concavity of the

lumbosis."



The maddest thing I ever saw in my life. I gave a lecture

to a short story class one time. Been giving a lot of

lectures to writers classes and things like this in

universities and places. And, I walked up on the rostrum,

and there were all the assembled students, and lying on the

rostrum was one of my current magazine stories, lying open

to my story, which was the lead story of the magazine. And

the instructor had taken every single one of the sentences

of the opening of the story and deep into the body of the

story, and had marked each one of them for shadowing,

suspense element, you know? And all according to a

technology which I knew, but I hadn't thought of for years.

And I was fascinated. I looked at this, and just for a

moment wondered how it would be to be all thumbs, so you'd

have to, while you were writing a story say, "We had better

foreshadow some action."



Now. If Scientology's definition is the road to truth, then

what are the progressive grade processes? They are those

barriers in that order which keep a person from going

forward to an ultimate truth. So if you looked at a normal

PC you might see something on the order of where he is

parked in diddy-wa-diddy. You ever hear of diddy-wa-diddy?

That's actually ten miles on the other side of hell. And

that's where the people in hell go on their night out. But

anyway, he's over here in diddy-wa-diddy. Now he's going to

walk all the way, the whole route. See? Now these grades

are the gates across the road.



One, nobody knew the road. They didn't know he was down

there. They didn't know any of the gates across the road.

And standard tech simply takes this fellow, and it walks

him right straight up the lines through these exact gates.

And if you walk him through any other gates you're just

detouring. There aren't any other barriers on the track.

These are the shut gates on his road up the line. And they

are the grade pro-ces-ses, and it isn't just an illusion.

It is the fact. And because it is a fact, if you know your

job expertly, you simply go along and open these gates for

him, shove him through, go to the next gate, open it and

shove him through, and open the next gate and shove him

through.



Now there's eight thousand, seven hundred and fifty billion

other things you could do with the case, none of which

would put him any further along the road he's supposed to

travel. But boy, would they be interesting. And any time

else in man's history all they've done is they did find out

there might be somebody in diddy-wa-diddy, and they just

sent him a little closer to hell. Didn't even have the

dream that there might be a road out. So how far up the

line do you have to come to grasp this thing called

standard tech? There is a guy, there's a dream of a road

out. There is a road, there's a complete ocean of

wrongnesses, but what has been isolated are the exact

barriers to the exact road that takes him out. And he goes

right up the line.



Brrrrrrrmm!



Now along with that is the communication of the technology

and the training technology of the person to teach him to

do that. These are fantastic wins. They are so airy-fairy

and so starryeyed, and so far beyond anything man ever

envisioned. There all by itself it's a little bit hard to

grasp. But you just accept it. It's a road out. There's a

dream to get out, there's a road out, there're just exactly

so many gates across the road, standard tech, one right

after the other opens the gate, and standard tech, when the

guy has gone over in the left field, right field, off the

road, into the telegraph pole, something like that, also

gives you the technology of taking him out and putting him

back on the road. And there aren't eight ways to do it. And

it doesn't require any opinions.



Let's say we've got a concrete path that goes from A to B.

And we start walking down this concrete path. And all of a

sudden somebody rushes up and says, "Actually you're

supposed to walk over there in the gravel along the side of

the edge of the mole, you know, and you swim for a little

bit, and that's really how you get up to B." What kind of a

jackass is it that would walk over to the mole and jump in?

Well he'd have to be somebody who didn't have any idea

there was any, any concrete walk there. Well the first

thing you learn about standard tech is, one, there is a

walk there.



Now one of the ways you learn this is subjectively. Now I

don't want to invalidate anybody's case. I don't want to

invalidate anybody's reviews. But this pile of crap I've

got sitting here is how not to do it. Now also, there's an

infinity of ways not to do it. You can always have an

infinity of wrongnesses around one rightness. And the

rightnesses are very few. So if you learn the rightnesses

well then the wrongnesses, to hell with it. Do you follow?

You can get an infinity of ways to do something wrong. Well

work it out for yourself. Start counting up the number of

ways to sink a rowboat. Those are all wrongnesses. Now the

ways to row a rowboat, if it is a rowboat, not a sculling

boat, you can stand up and row it, you can sit down and row

it. You can row it with two men, you can row it with one

man. But the right way to row a rowboat is to put the oars

into the water and apply some energy to the handles, pick

the oars out of the water and replace them into the

position where they can be reinserted into the water to

apply some energy.



Now somebody comes along and he says to you, "Yes, well how

do you row a rowboat?" "Well, there's several ways you can

row a rowboat, that's for sure. You can stand up and face

the bow, you can sit down and face the stern, you can stand

up and face the stern, you can put a man on the right oar

and a man on the left oar, you can have two sets of oars."

Sounds like a lot of variables. But let me point out that

the oars on the right side and the oars on the left side of

the boat are doing exactly the same thing, no matter what

arrangement is made. If you've got a trireme, a bireme, it

doesn't matter. If you've got a life boat, if you've got a

little fishing dory, you're doing the same thing in each

particular case.



Now if you lose sight of the fact that the oar is supposed

to go into the water, and push the water back, if you lose

sight of that, you may have a great deal of theory, and a

great many questions, but the boat won't go anywhere.



That's normally what happens to science. Somebody finds out

about rowing a boat. And then for years and years and years

guys add to it, and eventually the rowing of the boat no

longer functions. And the boats don't row any more, and

they have to invent an entirely new technology of getting

through water.



You think I'm kidding. The movies, the movies show us in

biremes, old men-o-war with double oar banks of Greek

times, shows us, shows us all of these oars going, while

somebody is going bong, bong on drums, or something at the

back of the boat, in order to keep all the oars in turn. If

you take a life boat out and every rower on the starboard

side fails to exactly follow the motions of the aftermost

starboard rower, who's called the stroke oar, and if the

port aftermost rower, who is the port stroke, does not

follow exactly the motions of the other stroke, the boat

looks like a centipede with busted legs. Man has actually

pretty well forgotten how to row boats. Mass rowing of

boats. Big boats. Because they let the coxswain count. And

you hear all your demonstration when your coxswain count

the stroke. The coxswain can't count the stroke. Strokes

are counted by the stroke oar. There wouldn't be any reason

to hammer a drum because nobody's following a drum, they're

following a stroke oar. So why, why would anybody pound the

drum just for one oarsman? You could sit down along side of

this oarsman and say, "OK. Stroke. Stroke." There's no

reason to waste your lungs. As a matter of fact the entire

rowing of the boat is going to be completely ruined. It

looks like some wildly galloping centipede going along.



Now I know very well that they did it properly in Greek and

Roman times, because they speak of the white wings out of

the galleys. The white wings of the galleys. Now you'd

immediately, in a sail period and so on, you'd think they 

meant, think they meant canvas, or sails, or something. 

They didn't. They meant those double banks of oars. Because 

it looks just like, it just looks like a big bird flying at 

you. The oars are flapping, see, on both sides. You see them 

go up and down. Looks like a flying bird that is sitting down 

in the water. They never rowed that evenly by calling a stroke

or with drums.



And the other day I was looking through a book as to how

you rowed a life boat. And it said the coxswain called the

stroke. He doesn't. If he does, nobody can row the boat.



So look, if this fundamental piece of technology can be

wrecked by the simple action of making the wrong person

count cadence, or rhythm, do you see that a workable piece

of technology is very easily unsettled and upset?



So the thing that keeps standard tech standard is

following standard tech, not anybody else's advice. So

somebody comes along and he says, "We got a brand new

process which is riddlediddle-de-poggle-dings, and so on,

and we've got this brand new meter which we attach to the

toes of the PC and it makes him wiggle his ears." Well,

I'll probably still be around.



You'd better send it to me for a check up to make sure this

case...  I'll tell you something absolutely ghastly. In

eighteen solid years of research I kept the door wide open

to any research suggestion of any kind whatsoever. And from

the moment I wrote the last sentence of Dianetics the

Modern Science Of Mental Health, right on up the line I

would have been only too glad to have accepted a workable

action. But every time I did it got us in trouble. It might

have stayed with it a short period of time, it might have

appeared workable a short period of time. But in the final

analysis it got us in trouble.



I know how little things can change. And what you haven't

watched is that Scientology and Dianetics were developed

grade by grade. 1950, running of engrams. Running of engrams.



Fascinating. Just before the running of engrams there was

Straightwire. Then engram running developed heavily.

Secondaries, secondaries were developed in their proper

position and place.



The whole subject evolved along this particular line. And

do you know why, and what was the clue? And why these

became the grades? And why these are run in that sequence?

It's because they're the collection of those things which,

if violated, prevent any advance of the case. If one of

those things are out, then the case never goes OT. Simple.

And it's in that sequence. And the width of the road is

about one onethousandth of one micrometer. The variability

is zero. The wins are one zero zero. There's a brand new

approach. You're looking at a new world.



Now, somewhere up the line you get to start auditing this.

And when you start auditing this you're gonna get so damned

dizzy and power-happy somebody'll probably have to shoot

you down with a shot gun, because a guy just goes

completely wild. Normally speaking he goes wild on this.

He, he does exactly right, he does exactly what he's

supposed to do, the PC all of a sudden goes zzzooooooommmm,

just like he's supposed to do, and he all of a sudden

realizes he can do it. And you can't speak to him for days.

And then the mistake he makes is he now thinks he can case

supervise also. This is another field. It's based on the

same principles, but you have to know. If you have to know

it well to audit it you have to know it ten times as well

to case supervise it.



Now, I, I know, I caught that, that there'd been one or two

people in this class who were case supervisors at Saint

Hill, and so forth, and you can put it down to my charity

that you haven't been ground up for hamburger. Because what

I see here, wow. I taught you better than this.



There was a thing called standard tech. There has been a

thing called standard tech since 1966, but nobody's caught

the brass ring. So I'm putting that brass ring firmly in

your paw. I'm not trying to make you guilty, I'm merely

trying to give you one hundred percent win. One hundred

percent. If you get less than hundred percent, you goofed!

If you get less than one hundred percent as a case

supervisor, you goofed! Less than a hundred percent as an

auditor, you goofed. Some of the goofs are beyond your

control. And sometimes you hit a real goof that you can't

do anything about at all. And those are the goofs which you

shouldn't goof on.



You told the auditor to do so and so and so and so, and the

auditor did something else! He just got a letter from yongo-bongo, 

and yongo-bongo, he said, "When I was studying yogi, I found out 

that if the preclear sat in an ibis position... " He really decided 

he'd try that, see, and he didn't follow your C/S exactly, and

you've got a loused up case. And then, because it's going

to be a day or two between sessions, he goes and walks

under a street car. And that cuts your percentage, doesn't it.



Cases that are well audited don't go to ethics. Cases that

are badly audited wind up in ethics.



All too often.



Now, when you're dealing a purity, when you're dealing with

a purity of technology, the weapon in your hands has such

velocity, that it isn't the airy-fairy days where you

couldn't cut below the reality of the PC and louse him up.

There were years past where the technology as it went along

did not plow under and overthrow the reality level of the

PC. Well you're not dealing with it now. You're dealing

with the pure dynamite.



Now an explosives expert has often been known to carry

nitro glycerin in a flask in his hip pocket. All he had to

do was back up suddenly into something and he would have

fragmented all over the landscape. I've seen dynamite men

sit on boxes of fuses, smoking. And yet here's this guy who

is the nitro glycerin soup expert, the soup expert, and

somebody else even looks like he's going to touch a bottle

of soup and he practically throttles him. You walk in

toward the dynamite powder house with a cigarette in your

hands, and the guy who is smoking his pipe on the box gets

up and kicks you the hell out of the yard. In other words,

he knows enough about it, so he can ride it close to the

edge. And he's also smart enough to know you'd better not

let anybody else. Do you see? You're dealing, actually,

with terrifically powerful technology. Used right, it just

shoots a guy to the moon. Goofed up, pooey. And goofed up

cases are too many.



Now it takes a supervisor who knows his business. You can

run engrams on somebody, you can do this with somebody, you

can do that with somebody, you can run various processes,

you can run...  If you can get an idea of a, of a highway

running through the middle of a lot of blackness and a lot

of little pathways, and all that sort of thing, you can run

any of those little pathways. You can run any of those open

fields. You can do anything out there that you want to. You

can goof around, and flubble-dubble, and bobble-fobble,

and, and so forth. PC isn't getting anyplace, you can't do

him any damage to amount to anything. But you get on the

main highway. It is such a straight highway. The actions in

opening the gates are so positive, that when you goof that

up the PC will goof up. Do you follow?



Now if there's a big question in your mind as to whether or

not Scientology works you shouldn't be studying Class VIII.

Because, one is expected to be a sufficiently expert

auditor to produce some result, such as a touch assist. He

should be able to do that, and achieve some result. But if

one has got big questions about this and that, please

recognize them for what they are. They're just confusion

blowing off. There is just about as much question in

running a rehab, or the mechanisms of rehab, there isn't

any questions concerning it. There are no questions with

regard to listing. There aren't any. You list. And you list

it as long as it contains an item on it, and two on the

list you extend the list and give the PC the item, and what

the hell.



I mean, this is something like saying a box of matches on

the table is either full of matches or it's not full of

matches. If it is not full of matches and the matches are

dumped along side of it, and if the object is to restore

it, you pick up the matches, put them in the box, and put

the box together again. And you have a box of matches. I

mean, it's open and shut data like that, I mean it isn't

any wibble-wobble-wooble, it, it's just truth. See? So you

start watching for these simplicities. But what does it

take to be totally simple? It takes a total knowledge of

the lot.



Save such familiarity that you never even have to think to

do it. Now how often would you have to field strip a rifle

so that you could pick it up, put the cartridge into it and

fire it, without even thinking? Well, there's a

rifle... Clank, boom. Poom! How often would you have had to

have field stripped that rifle? Probably dozens of times.



Back in the days when medicine was medicine, and not Parke

and Davis and other drug companies pushing their stock up,

a medical doctor used to have to identify all of the bones of

the human skeleton, blindfolded, by touch alone.

Interesting exercise. Well what would be the point of such

an exercise? Well, it's kind of pointless, you very seldom

operate in the dark. But it sure as the devil gives you

familiarity. You know what bone is where when you've done

something like that.



Now, there're various actions and exercises which you can

do, and you can action them and exercise them. But if you

have any comm lag, if there is any comm lag between your

think and the datum you're trying to get, you don't know

standard tech well enough to do it. If there' s any comm

lag in you instantly thinking of the law of listing that

you need to apply at that instant, if you had to think of

it as a law of listing, as something that came off of a

bulletin, you haven't got it yet. You understand? You have

to...  It's a total. It's a total. You own it, you do it,

and so forth. You look at the list, and it isn't, "I wonder

where all of it... ?" You look at this list, you say, "That

list isn't correct." You just look at it, as I would with

any of these, oh, I could do this at random. List just

incorrect. Yes. Good. Yes. Yes. Didn't find any correct list.



Well anyhow.



Imagine a case supervisor now who would have to have his

whole bulletin file along side of him to have reference to

go over and find any of the errors which had been made in

the session, in order to order them corrected, in case... 

The trouble I have in case supervision is trying to read

the auditors' writing. It's that degree of simplicity. I

know my data. But you say, "Well of course you know the

data. You wrote the data. Naturally you know the data. You

developed the data." Well listen, god damn it, I've

developed more data than you ever heard of. You know? I've

just developed data by the wow! The total notes of

Dianetics and Scientology, the total tapes of Dianetics and

Scientology, are an ocean of data. Tremendous, fantastic scope.



How is it that I know these central data so well? When I

started doing CCHs, when I started doing model session, I

set myself up just like you. And I drilled it 'till I knew

it cold. I could write down the laws of listing again after

a lapse of several years, even though the bulletin that

recorded them originally had been removed from the lines,

and I wrote them from memory, and I think it took me

something on the order of about fifteen, twenty minutes.

The slowdown was Alex Sabirsky's ability to keep up with my

writing.



Now I know more phenomena than you can count, which are

contrary to those laws of listing, which seem to be this,

which off woff phenomena than that or is it the other way?,

and so forth. How is it that I would know those laws of

listing? Well, I had to keep check on things that didn't

have variables. I eventually isolated those things and

they're the things with no variables. So I had to write all

those things down. I had to know those. I had to read them

back. I had to remember these things. I had to know 'em.

You think you're studying this subject, why hell. I've

studied ninety five times the subject you ever studied.

Alright, then how is it that out of this whole body of

stuff I can pick so neatly this and that, and so as to do a

case supervision about as fast as I can read it? It is

knowing my data. Knowing which datum is the datum which

applies at this particular point, and what datum has been

violated and otherwise.



And you've got the same data I've got in your study packs.

Simple as that.



I don't do these folders from crystal balls, boy. I do

these just, these folders against the most concise series

of data you ever heard of. Srrrrrp-boom! We cracked a case

today down the middle. Down the middle, cross-wise and

diagonally. It was just about, he'd given us a bad time. We

keep cracking 'em. Knowing the data. Knowing the exact,

basic rules and laws.



Now there's something funny about all this. I know a lot of

other subjects in which such data occurs. I can give you

the datum of Freudian analysis. I'm a very good swami. I

can read minds so as to tear your skull off. Good at it.

Don't ever do these things. Still know the data in

connection with it.



Why? Then out of this tremendous body of information are we

stressing just these data? I've got us the widest possible

selection. It's the evaluation of importance, knowing which

point is valuable and what is trash. It is knowing where

the main line lies and where it doesn't. I wouldn't give

you spit for any datum in Freudian analysis. I wouldn't

give you dog spit for it.



In fact Freud and Broyer probably should have been stood up

against the nearest brick wall and shot unpleasantly, with

dull bullets.



You've always heard me be polite on that subject. I'm

taking down my hair. I'm talking to a Class VIII student.

What a lot of crap. You know who they really were? They

were some guys who had found out how you could take the

work of Charcot and Mesmer and persuade people to do things

against their will under pain-drug hypnotism. And there

isn't an analyst on the planet who ever does anything else

in the...  It's a method of shaking people down and bending

their will. Brayer and Freud, in 1891, were agents of Kaiser

Wilhelm Hogensoloven. And they were dedicated to making

politically-minded changes for him. A bunch of crap. A

complete swindle. Just a hypnotist. So he invents the

libido-dibido theory, and he goes poogly-poods and ids, and

Greek mythology, and bah! There're certain principles

involved in any savage and primitive think that you can

use. Certain principles involved. There's certain magical

principles.



There's opening up somebody's memory, making him, forcing

him or persuading him to remember something painful, and so

forth. These are known to every medicine man, every swami

there is. How is it they knew it and never used it, huh?



Right now, right now the beautiful technology, heh, of

these characters is turned against Scientology, because the

politicians you hear crying out against them have wives who

have been violated by psychoanalysis. They are under the

influence. There are thousands of zones where data could

lie. There're billions of zones where, that you could

consider truth. There's a whole universe out here full of

crap and bucks And I show you one little, narrow line that

goes straight through it, like a shock, and a few gates,

which if you open them exactly correctly, somebody goes out

like he is on a rocket ride. So if you ever mention to me

again a question about something over in left field I'll

have you spanked. This is a lousiest thing - what the hell

is anybody doing wandering around over here in left field?

Here's the main road. Let's get on it, let's find out what

the principles on it are. I didn't mean to curse you that

mildly. Here's the main highway. Now knock off the mucking

about and get on it.



There aren't any questions about it, it just is. And it's a

certain series of actions that you do.



And they wind up at the other end in a total result. So do

it. Boom! That's all there is to it, and as far as case

supervision, your main trouble will be trying to convince

the auditors auditing for you that they'd better damn well

do what you say on a case supervision folder, and not some

other crappy thing. And then you will have to convince them

because of your ferocity on this whole subject, you will

have to convince them that they'd better damn well speak

the truth by making a false report far worse than just a goof.



These problems are ahead of you. The first thing you must

learn is that there is a road. You can learn it

subjectively easy enough, or I could turn lose division

five on you, left, right and center. Clean up all the flubs

and bubs and so forth, and send you flying with the

greatest of ease. If anything wrong with your case or

bogged down, you'd wonder where the hell you; what, what

you ever thought was gain before this? Well I'm not going

to do that. I'm going to let you get win on each other in

the org student course. We could make, make your cases

zongobingo so fast it'd make your head swim. But then,

we've got all the wins we want. You can have it too. And

you can also be the effect end of the goofs.



So anyway, that is everything I have to say to you this

evening. And I hope something I have said will assist you

on your road to truth. Thank you.



**************************************************