

SH Spec-73 ren 436  2 Aug 66 Suppressives and GAEs

SUPPRESSIVES AND GAEs

A lecture given on 2 August 1966

6608C02 SH Spec-73

[Based on the clearsound version only.]


========BEGIN LECTURE========

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you!

What's the date?

Mary Sue: August the 2nd, A.D. 16.

Well, Suzie knows it but the rest of you don't seem to know the 
date.

What's the date?

Audience: 2nd of August 1966.

That's correct! 2 August, A.D. 16.

Now, we have lots of subjects we can always talk about. We have lots 
of tapes on them. But we obviously never have enough, for some 
peculiar reason. For some peculiar reason, why, the Tech Sec and the 
Qual Sec and so forth have trouble with a scarcity of materials on 
some of these subjects. That's quite obvious, because they keep 
getting committed or omitted.

Now, there's two types of crime - two types of crime. There's the 
crimes of commission and the crimes of omission. And in modern 
society they pay very little attention to the crimes of omission.

The penalty is usually awarded to a person, really, for two reasons: 
One is for being there and the other is for communicating. Now, that 
is the normal penalty in this society. If you want to reduce any 
crime down, why, it was basically composed of those two elements: 
being there and communicating.

But there are crimes of not being there and not communicating too; 
the society doesn't pay much attention to these. But the auditor not 
being there and the auditor not carrying out his communications is a 
crime of the highest order, because he's now barring the road.

Now, it used to be that people were - you know, they expected me to 
prove Dianetics and Scientology to them, and you know, sort of carry 
along the full responsibility for its workability, and when it 
didn't work it was my fault, and I should have done it better, and 
so on.

Well, you probably expect changes in Level 0, I, II, III, IV and V 
and all that sort of thing. Now, I got an awful surprise for you, 
you know: I'm not changing one comma in nothing.

Now, we've gone from a total change, you see, to a total no-change, 
you see, just to make a proper dichotomy. So, the materials now are 
just right there.

But today, today, I really speak from considerable strength, because 
we have such a thing as a Clear and when you clip a Clear on the ear 
he rings for an hour without stopping. They are that clear. And 
everything that was predicted up to the level of Clear has more than 
been made good.

Now, what's very peculiar is the road to Clear, in its stages from 
wog to Grade IV - pardon me, raw meat to Grade IV (a wog is somebody 
who isn't even trying) - the total jump there is very fast. That is 
a very fast jump. And that is one of the troubles of the lower 
grades and the thing that you as an auditor will have the most 
trouble with. It happens too quick.

Now, there are some processes which are not in the lineup which 
would be so quick - well, I don't dare put them in the lineup, you 
see? The auditor is busy adjusting his meter, you know, and he 
doesn't notice the guy went Release. So we've omitted those.

And 2-12 is one of them. Marvelous process - the most fascinating 
process to overrun that anybody ever heard of. I mean, it wraps a 
person around more telegraph poles in less times. When I got that I 
said, "This is really it, man."

People said, "Well, if that's really it, let's really audit it!"

But we have, we have today such a fast route that it's only by 
additives, goofing it up and particularly the gross GAEs - the GAEs: 
the gross auditing errors - that can stop somebody from going.

So in actual fact, it becomes a real crime now to audit badly, 
because you are barring the road for this fellow for eternity. 
That's quite a long time.

Now, any thetan wants out. Even the SP himself, personally, wants 
out, only he unfortunately is sure that you are simply trying to put 
him in. You see, he knows he belongs in. And he is very easily 
described as somebody who is totally surrounded by Martians, 
regardless of who you are. You see, he's stuck in an incident which 
has personnel that have nothing to do with present time. But all 
that personnel is in present time, and you are that personnel, so 
that, of course, you have to be held down, because if you got big 
and strong and powerful, you - being a Martian or being an FBI agent 
or being something else - would of course do him in. So therefore he 
commits almost continuous crimes in an effort to hold people down.

Now, there is a tendency on the part of Ethics that every time 
somebody commits a lot of GAEs, and so forth, to declare them 
suppressive.

Now, I should make it rather clear that a suppressive is a special 
breed of cat. He is not hard to identify, in actual fact. He is 
somebody with no case gain.

Well, you say, that's very hard. If somebody does not get better 
with Dianetics or Scientology auditing, then you immediately say 
that he is no good. Well, interpret it that way if you like. It's 
okay with me. I'm impervious to criticism.

But anyway, a suppressive, being a very particular breed of cat, 
will of course commit nothing but and do nothing but GAEs and cannot 
be pressed into auditing at all. They won't audit at all.

Now, because somebody makes a few GAEs, that doesn't make them a 
suppressive. Do you follow? But it does happen to be true that a 
suppressive would never audit, he would only commit GAEs. All you 
would have to do would be describe to him how to make the gross 
auditing error so as to keep it from working, and you instantly and 
immediately would have on your hands nothing but GAEs. Because he 
then would be able to mask himself by saying, "You see? I am trying 
my best to audit these people, and they still don't get any better. 
So therefore I am right and Hubbard is wrong, and the rest of you 
guys are for the birds." Do you see? "And therefore it doesn't work, 
and there isn't any way to make them any stronger. (And if we can 
just get rid of this, then I'm safe.)" That's his whole philosophy: 
If he can get rid of any method of making anybody stronger or more 
powerful, then he's got it made.

So he of course rewards only down statistics. You see, only a down 
statistic gets rewarded; never reward an up statistic. And goof up 
or vilify any effort to help anybody. And particularly knife with 
violence anything calculated to make human beings more powerful or 
more intelligent.

Now, the main trouble with Scientology in southern Africa is they're 
terrified that I may teach it someday to the Africans. So that makes 
them very, very, very nervous. That's the truth. I've had it said to 
me several times: "Wouldn't that be awful - to have intelligent 
Africans!"

Now, a suppressive automatically and immediately will curve, then, 
any betterment activity into something evil or bad. If you let him 
have auditing, he would then use a pattern like the GAEs to audit. 
You see?

But once more I tell you that not everybody who makes GAEs is 
suppressive.

Now, a GAE [suppressive] - special breed of cat, no case gain. And I 
mean no case gain. Now, I would coax registrars into being alert to 
this, and they'd save us fantastic amounts of trouble. Because 
something on the order of two and a half persons out of every 
hundred who walk in the streets are screaming, museum-piece, 
institution-bait suppressives. They're the people who put the people 
in institutions. People in institutions are really PTS, potential 
trouble sources, which are, they say, the effect of suppressives. 
Suppressives are very seldom picked up. They know better than to get 
obvious.

Now, a suppressive makes no case gain and will sit there and brag 
about it, and he can't resist bragging about it. And any registrar 
who had somebody come in and say, "Well, I've had three and a half 
thousand hours of processing..." or "...one thousand hours of 
processing ..." or "...every auditor in Seattle, and they haven't 
had any results on me so far, and I've still got this terrible 
lumbosis. And I've come here to find out if you could do anything 
for me. And I want a sort of a guarantee that you can."

At that moment if I were the registrar, knowing my technology, I 
would say, "You bet! Now, you've had a lot of trouble with auditors. 
Now, before we sign you up, you had better go and see the Ethics 
Officer."

Let him trot over to the Ethics Officer. And then an Ethics Officer 
should be very fully aware of what this is all about. He's not 
complaining... Anybody has a right to complain about one auditor. 
But this guy will complain about them all, man.

He has other characteristics which are quite marked, and it's really 
an interesting breed of cat. If you ever got him auditing, he will 
only be happy or satisfied if his preclear gets worse. And he's only 
sad when the pc gets better. And that characteristic was what 
spotted us suppressives, years and years and years ago.

This is very peculiar. We'd notice here and there - once in a blue 
moon - we would have somebody exhibiting these characteristics. And 
the rest of the characteristics was that he himself got no case gain 
of any kind whatsoever, and he committed nothing but GAEs and could 
be educated into nothing else but committing errors. And we 
eventually traced these people as to what they did and how they 
behaved, and the monitoring fact was no case gain.

Now, there are a bunch of ramifications to this but these do not 
make a suppressive. The suppressive is in active attack on 
Scientology. He commits overts twenty-four hours a day. You almost 
never find out about them.

"Every auditor in Seattle has audited me. Yeah, didn't make any case 
gain. Yeah, they took my money and they did me in." Ah, come off of 
it. You couldn't have that many Scientologists working on one person 
without a case gain. It's impossible. No, he would have had some 
gain at some time or another.

You know now that that person also privately commits overts - secret 
overts in the society around him. It isn't usually a nasty habit 
like strangling babies or something like that, but it could be. 
Spitting in other people's beer. You know, something.

Just another characteristic - another characteristic is, attacks 
wrong targets. If the fridge is making a great deal of noise ... To 
you Americans, refridge is English for icebox, or "fridge." Anyway, 
if the fridge is making a lot of noise, and it's annoying him, he 
will go over and kick the lamp. If the car has a flat tire, he will 
fix the motor.

In addition to that, he will not complete a cycle of action, but if 
he occasionally does complete a cycle of action and finds out about 
it, he will then reverse it. You get the idea: He's found out that 
he accidentally completed a cycle of action (see, he delivered the 
goods or something): he will immediately reverse it.

Now, those continuous overts, wrong target, noncompletions of cycles 
of action, are primary manifestations, and when accompanied with no 
case gain, you pretty well got the boy tagged.

Now, at no time during this lecture have I said that all existing 
governments on the planet today reward down statistics, choose wrong 
targets, fail to complete cycles of action or commit continuous 
overts. I have not said that. And your inference on that subject is 
your own responsibility!

Well now, if you, in auditing, find yourself up against somebody who 
can't make any case gain, and you are doing your best, now, don't be 
a fool as an auditor. You take this thing on an ethics basis. Tech 
is out, because it isn't working. So your other tool that comes 
before tech is ethics.

Now, you as an auditor can actually be an Ethics Officer - which I 
think is quite interesting, but you have to be every now and then - 
and you should know some of the technology of ethics. It isn't just 
routing somebody to the Ethics Officer. You yourself, every now and 
then, are going to find yourself sitting there as a cop. Well, much 
more superior to a cop - an Ethics Officer.

You're going to have to know how to locate overts, how to locate 
overts that are so unreal they don't even show on a normal meter. 
You're going to have to be able to locate all kinds of things, on a 
meter or in life, concerning your pc.

Now, where you run up against a total blank, you obviously can't get 
tech in, huh? You see? I mean, no gain, no gain, so therefore your 
other weapon is ethics. And that comes before tech.

Now, what's the matter with the planet at this particular time is 
ethics is out. And that is proven by the fact that you are having a 
hard time getting tech in. With the technology which you know at 
this particular moment and the results which you are delivering even 
at lower levels, you have a total monopoly of all mental activities, 
all religious activities and all social activities on this planet. 
That is what you are entitled to at this moment. Do you have them? 
Well, therefore, tech is out. Obvious.

So, the only thing that puts tech out is if ethics is out. The only 
thing that can get tech in is ethics.

Now, ethics is based on the mechanics of the SP, the suppressive 
person - the mechanics of the SP. Now, if you were to audit one of 
these heads of governments who's always choosing wrong targets and 
not completing cycles of action and committing these little overts - 
like "brush wars" or something - if you were to put him in the 
auditing chair, you would find that he would not respond to 
processing. No matter what you called it, no matter what reason you 
had to do it, nothing, he wouldn't respond to processing. He's a 
suppressive!

Now, he isn't going to do what you say as an auditor, because you of 
course are a Martian like everybody else. You're his favorite 
bugbear, a representative of, sitting there. You're not trying to 
help him; you're trying to trick him. You're trying to trick him 
into letting down his protective mechanisms long enough so that you 
can stab him in the back! That's his whole opinion of life. And that 
is what you would find in the driver's seat. That is what you would 
find.

Now, as long as that sort of bloke is in the driver's seat... Now, 
nothing in this lecture invites anyone to war, civil commotion or 
rebellion, assassination or other political activities. But if you 
were to get ethics in, you would just have to get ethics in.

Now, ethics isn't gotten in on a wide police-state basis. It's 
gotten in on a very narrow basis. It's just a very occasional 
individual here and there who is in power.

Now, the other part of the ethics picture is called a PTS, who is a 
potential trouble source. And if you don't think that a potential 
trouble source doesn't cause trouble, you should look along the 
line, because the trouble is great, numerous, and so on. Causes much 
more apparent trouble than the SP. So, you very often think that you 
are looking at an SP who is simply causing trouble to find yourself 
looking in actual fact at a potential trouble source.

Now, the person is a potential trouble source because he's connected 
to the SP. He has not handled or disconnected from the SP, and as 
long as he does not either handle or disconnect, he will continue to 
be a potential trouble source, no matter how thoroughly he explains 
it otherwise.

Now, a potential trouble source is interesting to us, as far as 
technology is concerned, in that he rollercoasters. Now, a 
rollercoaster is something they have on Coney Island and other 
places, and down in Long Beach they used to have one called the 
Rabbit Eight, and so on. It's these little railways that go up in 
the sky and have terrific dips, in amusement parks, you see? And the 
little cars go up and the little cars go down, and that's a 
rollercoaster. And the pc who goes up and the pc who goes down is 
rollercoastering.

And please don't think he's doing anything else. He hasn't done 
anything else at all but rollercoaster when he comes back in after 
the session and says, "I felt fine yesterday afternoon, but this 
morning I have a terrible stomachache." He's rollercoastered.

Now, during that period of time when that pc was out of sight, an SP 
was either directly contacted or restimulated. Now, the person 
didn't have to see the SP, but only had to see something that 
reminded him of the SP. SP is a postman; he sees a letter box. 
That's enough. He goes PTS - potential trouble source - so he 
rollercoasters.

Now, this person is going to endlessly cause you, as an auditor, 
trouble. You're going to get them up three inches in the session and 
they will fall back four in life. And it is terrible to audit them. 
We're not being extreme. Actually, we're auditing over the dead body 
of some SP valence or person. We're auditing across something which 
is going to kill this fellow if he gets any better!

If, for instance, your pc (who is PTS) were to demonstrate an 
intelligence graph which went from 90 to 131, there's every 
possibility that he'd wake up the next morning very dead from 
arsenic. I mean, you're actually putting his life at risk. That's 
why you mustn't audit them - not because they're a trouble to you. 
You're going to kill them. They're going to get sicker and sicker. 
More and more extraordinary effort is going to be applied to making 
this person ill. Sad but true.

Now, therefore, you are very interested in this thing called a 
potential trouble source, because a potential trouble source will 
give you trouble, will rollercoaster, won't get better, and it's a 
terrible liability to audit them - a liability to yourself 
personally and a liability to them. If all of a sudden they made a 
sweeping gain, they're liable to be met with a .45-caliber pistol. 
I'm not joking.

Now, as fast as auditing is today, it really isn't fast enough to 
make the total grade against the SP, because there's that better 
part of a year to Clear.

Now, you could make the lower grades. You got the person for a week. 
You can make all the lower grades in a week, see? You work real hard 
and you do a real good job and the person is responding okay, and 
they're out of a restimulative environment. And that's why you see 
so many Grade Vs and VI cave in. You're not making it fast enough to 
keep them away from the suppressive environment.

So they get up to V and they're going to have a long time to go 
before they're VI, and whewww. So you see Vs, collapse. Do you see? 
They're PTS. And that was because an undetected suppressive is in 
this person's environment, and the person is moved out of his common 
environment, and you audited this person, and in the process of 
auditing this person you got 'em - whsstt - Grade IV Release! Great 
day! Fine!

Oh yes, they're not going to have this much trouble. Yes, during 
that period of release they might even get wise to their 
environment. All kinds of things might be okay, but they walk out of 
that ... And remember this person is only a Release. This person is 
still very mortal. Terrific shape - better than any activity was 
ever ... Actually, Grade 0 is better than any activity in the past 
ever got to. They can still be hit head-on by the truck, and don't 
think they aren't if they have a real, live SP in their vicinity; 
boy, that guy gets right into the General Sherman tank and throws 
all - all fuel on the fire. Bam!

And so you get more Grade V trouble ... See, Grade IV, they went 
away, got restimulated. Now you come back; they're all set. Now 
you've got to rehabilitate them and so forth, and it takes a while 
to get through Grade V, and you start to run into your trouble if 
there's an SP in this person's vicinity.

Grade VI, you'll run into more trouble. And possibly anybody who's 
lagging on the Clearing Course is simply very PTS and so forth. But 
actually, the Clearing Course, if a person follows procedure and 
does grit his teeth and try to handle or disconnect his environment, 
he can make it through. (I have; I'm making it through very nicely.)

Well, I'm connected with some SPs known as governments and so on. 
They have long since made up their minds that we should be shot and 
pilloried and that sort of thing. I'm just - see, wrong target. I'm 
just hoping that they will get very mad at somebody else.

But the point I'm making is that it's at about Grade VI which is the 
make-break point. You could somehow or other start persevering 
through, if you were a very superior thetan, at about Grade VI. You 
know, "So there's SPs; so I'm PTS - rrrr, rrrr, rrrr, rrrr. I'll 
make it somehow!" But I don't think it would be possible at Grade V.

Now, the answer to that is what we call an S&D, Search and 
Discovery. And when you're running an S&D, you're doing an ethics 
job. And you know assessment isn't auditing, and an S&D is an 
assessment.

This fellow who says, "He doesn't do assessments well because he has 
GAEs during assessment, and so forth..." How could you have a GAE 
during an assessment? It's a gross auditing error. You can't have 
GAEs during assessment, unless you are auditing, which is against 
the law!

You see, assessing comes much closer to being an ethics action than 
a technical action because it's finding the suppressive; it's 
finding the PTS; it's patching up the ARC breaks caused by life and 
the environment. You see? Actually, those people have impinged on 
the individual.

So therefore, the auditor had better realize that these techniques - 
there are some techniques, such as the Search and Discovery (S&D), 
Search and Discovery for the suppressive, and ARC break - are not 
auditing actions at all but ethics actions. So therefore, you have 
to be a bit of an Ethics Officer, don't you?

Well, let's continue it out just a little bit further. And let's let 
you recognize when you are not getting any case gains while doing 
your best, and don't keep cutting your throat. Start taking an 
ethics action.

Now, the ethics action that'd be taken against a potential trouble 
source or a PTS - somebody connected with a suppressive - the ethics 
action that can be taken with regard to that person is to do a 
Search and Discovery. You sometimes will have trouble with your 
Search and Discovery because you haven't handled the ARC break 
before you did it. You say the guy looks like he has a suppressive 
around. Well, suppressives also ARC break people. And you mustn't 
even do an assessment on an ARC-broken person; you must get the ARC 
break first.

Anybody who looks a little bit sad has had an ARC break for a long 
time. He's going into the sad effect.

Now, where your auditing will break down in the lower grades is on a 
rock known as the SP. And what can you do about him? He's got no 
case gain. He has no potential of case gain. You are sitting there, 
a Martian. You audit him. He tells you that you have made his finger 
better. He runs immediately next door and says that you're a gyp and 
a fraud and ought to be killed! He spreads wild tales about you 
around the neighborhood. He's perfectly nice to your face, chops you 
up behind your back. Do you get the idea? That is not a 
characteristic of an SP. It's because you've tried to help him that 
has made him mad at you. Other people also talk behind other 
people's back, because we're not all brave.

But what can you do for this fellow? What can you do for this 
fellow?

Well, now, the only known action - and there is one - that can be 
taken with an SP is the last Power Process. And that will handle an 
SP if you can get him to sit still and answer the auditing 
questions. But you mustn't run it until some other processes have 
been seen to fail. Do you follow?

Now, where can you get that done? Well, you can get that done in an 
organization which is qualified to run Power Processing; and where, 
I trust, they have an auditor who can do it very well; and where, I 
also trust, they have a registrar who, as soon as the person sits 
down and says "Everybody in Seattle has audited me, and they've 
gotten no results at all," will promptly call for the Ethics Officer 
and chuck the fellow out onto the street.

Well, you say, "That's - hey, wait a minute. You just said - you 
just said that this Power Process would handle the guy, and you're 
saying that he really couldn't get in to register." Well, until such 
time as you run the mental hospitals, throw him out in the street, 
because he's the maddest hatter of them all. He's the real psycho.

You would actually have to put him in something like a padded cell. 
You'd say, "Well, you answer the next auditing command and you can 
have your dinner." Three days later, you give him his dinner. But 
you're not equipped to handle this guy. But I'm saying that a person 
who gets no case gain could, in a well-handled HGC, whose auditors 
know their business on Power Processing, could in actual fact be 
audited up the line and out and squared around.

Now, when you've audited them on that, remember, you haven't made a 
Grade V Release. This condition, by the way, is often mistaken - 
that you audit Grade V processes, but the person hasn't been bridged 
up to those processes, and when you've audited the Grade V 
processes, you've got somebody who is prepared to do a lower-grade 
release. You haven't got a Grade V Release; you've got somebody who 
can now be audited to Grade 0. So therefore, don't be so surprised 
sometime when you run into somebody who has been audited on Grade V 
processes and who doesn't seem to be able to talk. Do you see? Do 
you see that? Power Processes are circular.

But until such time as you've got very legal control of your 
environment, and until such time as you've got available padded 
cells and you can handle everything that goes wrong, and so forth, 
you'd be terribly wise to have a registrar who, the second somebody 
says "Well, I've been out in California, and I've been audited by 
everybody in California, and the organization out there charged me 
eighteen thousand dollars and I got no place, and I've never had any 
case gains, and that sort of thing," if you had a smart registrar, 
the smart registrar would instantly say, "Well, you just go over and 
tell Ethics about it, because I'm very sure they would like to hear 
all these complaints about these auditors."

And then if you've got a clever Ethics Officer, the Ethics Officer 
listens to all this and sorts it out, and finds out whether or not 
this is an actual complaint, if there aren't just one or two 
auditors that made a goof, or whether this guy really hasn't been - 
has been audited well and didn't make any case gains. That is what 
the Ethics Officer has got to decide. And if the Ethics Officer 
decides that this is an SP, you're taking your life in your hands to 
put that person into the HGC.

But now, you say, "Well, that's a pretty cruel line to take, and we 
are very helpful persons."

Well, someday when you haven't anything better to do, go down in the 
jungle and find a wounded water buffalo who is stuck in a hole, and 
go over barehandedly to help him out. And if you go through that 
elementary exercise, you will, I think, understand what I am talking 
about. Because that's what's going to happen: you're going to get 
gored.

Now, these people can be broken up pretty quickly. The only mistake 
they ever make in an HGC is running the preliminary Power Processes. 
You don't; you just saw right in - blambo!

Now, all of this preamble is to give you a taste of what ethics is 
all about. Ethics is not our effort to make ourselves right and the 
rest of the world wrong. That is not that activity. It's not our 
service facsimile. It's how we're getting - it's how we're getting 
in tech.

Now, we do - organizationally we have a tendency to be snappy and 
choppy with ethics and do this and that, but the reason for that is, 
is we're slightly introverted because we're a bit PTS against the 
environment around us. We cannot depend on the governments or 
societies in which we exist to have any caliber or quality of 
justice or anything like that. On the one hand the Ethics Officer is 
trying to protect the organization from the consequences of SPs and 
PTSes, and on the other hand is trying also to bring about the 
justice which we so liberally pay for with income tax and nobody 
gives us.

There isn't any legal protection out there. If it's a jungle, it's 
because ethics are out, not because man is bad.

It might interest you how an SP comes about.

He's already got enough overts to deserve more motivators than you 
can shake a stick at, see? He has done something to dish one and all 
in. He's been a bad boy.

Now, the reason he got to be a bad boy was by switching valences. He 
had a bad boy over there, and he then in some peculiar way got into 
that bad boy's valence. Now, he knows what he is, he's a bad boy. 
See?

Man is basically good, but he mocks up evil valences and then gets 
into them. You see, he says "The other fellow is bad. The other 
fellow is bad. The other fellow is bad," see? And eventually he got 
this pasted-up other fellow, and one day he becomes the other 
fellow, see, in a valence shift or a personality - whole complete 
package of personality - and there he is. And so he's now an evil 
fellow. He knows how he's supposed to act: he's supposed to act like 
the other fellow. That's the switcheroo. That's how evil comes into 
being.

The religionists have been very - having a hard time trying to solve 
what evil was, and that is what evil is: it's the declaration or 
postulate that evil can exist. In the absence of postulates and the 
declaration of such, man is good. Isn't it interesting?

When you take all of the furniture polish off, and all the cast iron 
and old garbage and so forth out, you find a good person. That's 
very lucky, because we're making very powerful persons, and it's 
very fortunate that they're good persons. Quite interesting as a 
mechanism. It would not be safe to embark upon such an activity as 
Scientology at all - you'd wreck the whole universe - if that truth 
wasn't a truth, and it is a truth.

It is the false, mocked-up valence which is the evil valence. Do you 
follow?

All right. Well, this fellow has been assigning great evilness to 
another personality or type of personality. And then one day he got 
into it. And then when he was in this basically evil personality he 
started doing other people in. And then other people got very tired 
of him, something of the sort, and he got himself into an incident - 
after which time never advanced.

Now, this is not the type of incident of which the R6 bank is 
composed. This is another type of incident. This is a battle 
incident or some kind of an incident. He is being attacked. He's 
being actively attacked by other beings, and he is stuck on the 
track. Now, that portion of the time track, or that point in time, 
is more real than present time.

Now, every once in a while you will be sliding around in Dianetic 
auditing and once in a blue moon you will suddenly have the incident 
.. Well, you [are] all the time running one, with just your 
interest on it, the incident is more real than the environment in 
which you are, and so on. But you once in a while will run into an 
incident which is far, far, far more real than any reality you ever 
experienced! Thuhh! There it is, boy!

Now, anybody has got a few of these. He isn't permanently stuck in 
them. I remember the first time it ever happened to me, there was a 
line of redcoats, and the guns had never gone off. It was a very 
light little incident and it went flick and that was the end of 
that. But just for that instant, that line of redcoats was about the 
realest line of people I ever saw in my life. There they were, you 
see, all ready for volley fire with their flintlocks, you know? It 
was at an action, back - the days, you know, when you tipped your 
hat and you said, "Your first shot, gentlemen."

And for some reason or other, due to various complications, why, the 
volley had never arrived. In fact, the flintlock hammers were just 
about halfway down on the priming pan. You know? There they were. 
They had to go the rest of that way and the guns had to fire. And 
it's many, many years ago. And I said, "That's an interesting 
mechanism," because I just saw it as a mechanism, since it wasn't 
very affecting to me; I wasn't worried about redcoats.

And I looked - afterwards, I looked for it to see if I couldn't find 
it. Many, many, many years later, I found it, man. I found it, man. 
You see, anybody has got one or two or three of these things, you 
see, when they start in from scratch, you know, before they get up 
in the Grades. They'll have a point there, and they're flicking 
around and all of a sudden, why, there is a fighter plane, or there 
is the ground, you know, or there they are on the edge of the cliff 
and the arrow hasn't quite arrived. And for just a split instant as 
you see the thing, boy, that arrow is really real, man! That has 
made an impression. Well, to that degree time has been stopped, and 
when you run back into it, you'll find a stopped picture. But 
remember, you and I are running back into it. Do you get the 
difference?

The SP never went on from there. He never advanced from that moment! 
He's there in totally absorbed attention! And these walls, to the 
SP, are phony and thin. He knows where the real walls are. The real 
walls are in that instant, and that instant is more real to him than 
present time with every tick of the clock. And that incident 
contains something. It contains other personalities, other 
vengeances. But you, moving around outside of this person - you, 
moving around outside of this person - are part of the dramatis 
personae of his incident, and you are a threat, because all life is 
this incident.

There he is, driven against the cliff and being butchered by man -
monsters. He's next in the line of captives, and in the trillions 
which followed, he's always been next in the line of captives. This 
person is living a nightmare that was once very real. It isn't, as a 
psychiatrist said, something which didn't exist. (I would never take 
the opinion of a suppressive person on what the track was all about, 
anyway.) He's always been the next one to be killed, see?

Maybe the other personnel out there are Roman legionnaires or some 
past-track Rome. But whatever it is, his bank got stacked-stacked-
stacked-stacked-stacked till he no longer had fluidity, he no longer 
could move on this track, and then he got the business! Well, you 
could only get the business that solidly if you yourself had enough 
overts to stretch from here to Halifax and back.

But there he is, and he's never been anyplace else - not from that 
moment on. You are the Roman legionnaire; you are part of the game.

Now, that is all there is to an SP. There aren't warped brain cells, 
or numerous other things. There aren't thousands of answers to this. 
It is that answer.

And you, in practicing Dianetic auditing, run into a mental image 
picture. All right. Now, a person has a lot of these mental image 
pictures. Now, don't blame me if a person's mental image pictures, 
perfectly accurate, go back further than man likes to think he has 
lived. Don't blame me for it, because anybody you audit in Dianetics 
will run into just that! You audit them long enough and there they 
go! Man is an immortal being, and he did not get born in sin at the 
beginning of this lifetime.

By the way, if you want to argue that, get somebody to run you on 
some engrams so you fall through and see for yourself! Anyway!

The point is here that this is something that has happened to the 
fellow; like he's being beat up by a bunch of cops, and there he is, 
and he has never been out of being beat up by a bunch of cops. He's 
just stuck in time being beat up by the cops, you see? Now, that 
makes everyone he runs into a cop - male or female, peculiarly 
enough. His power of differentiation is zero. Everything equals 
everything in the incident. And that is the boy. And it makes him 
choose wrong targets. He can't complete a cycle of action because 
he's stuck in time. It makes him perform little overts because he's 
defending himself continuously - defending himself against the 
police.

Now, this, this is the character - this is the character called an 
SP, and he isn't anyplace else. Now, of course, with Power 
Processing, could be blasted loose. And being blasted loose, he is 
able to function again on the track, and now he will respond to 
processing. It's as simple as that.

But how can a cop or a Roman legionnaire audit him? Do you get the 
difference? That's the only problem to be solved in handling an SP. 
It isn't an auditing problem; it's a problem of the identity of the 
auditor.

Now, you would just be amazed how many cases resolve in an 
institution. I know, I've put my collar on backwards many a day and 
audited psychos in institutions, in many a yesteryear. It's amazing, 
absolutely amazing. Some of the results I've had with this make me 
sometimes a little bit ashamed of myself that I don't push in that 
direction harder. Because institutions contain very few SPs. They're 
PTSes. The SPs are those in charge!

I've seen a girl actually getting better and had a psychiatrist run 
up to me absolutely screaming, "You must get the family - you must 
get the family of this person to - to consent to electric shock!"

"What's the matter?"

"Well, we've got to electric-shock her!"

"What's the matter with the patient?"

"We've got to do it!"

"No, no, no - is the patient getting worse?"

"You don't understand! We'll throw her out of here!"

Talking to a nut - complete nut. Person was getting better, so they 
had to electric-shock them.

The same person told me that I didn't keep good records. I should 
keep records that had the time and place connected with every single 
action as the predominate action, and so forth, and they kept good 
records.

And I said - it's sort of like shooting at tame dogs to talk to 
these fellows. I mean, it's cruel. They miss all the obvious things 
like, you know, "Yes, but what do you learn from your records?" You 
know? Question like that never occurs to them, see? "What do you 
learn from your records?"

"Well, what do we learn?" Then complete non sequitur - you know, 
ding-ding-ding, here comes the wagon - complete non sequitur: "Well, 
we learned if we didn't electric-shock them, they would get out of 
here six weeks earlier in each case." Yet he has to electric-shock 
everybody, see? He even knows it doesn't help anybody. He's gotten 
that brave, see, he's gotten that blatant.

Now, my only quarrel with psychiatry, in actual sober fact, is that 
it's not cleaned up its profession. It's got dirty hands. It's not 
cleaned up its profession, because if it cleaned up its profession, 
it would be able to view the fact that some of the things they do 
get results, and 90 percent of the things they do don't. And that 
the cruelty and brutality which they levy against the insane, or 
wage against the insane, is not getting results. If they knew about 
the mind, they would know how to handle their own people.

So my only quarrel with psychiatry is their ethics are out. Do you 
follow me?

Now, Frieda Fromm-Reichmann - this is not my own opinion. Frieda 
Fromm-Reichmann wrote a book on it. Someday you want to look it up. 
It's Frieda Fromm-Reichmann, and she was one of the greatest of 
great - I think she's still alive - and she wrote a book in which 
she begged throughout the book for the psychiatrist and his 
profession to get in his own ethics on his own practitioners. That 
book is available - Library of Congress and other places. And she is 
probably the dean of all American psychiatry. She was making a 
feeble effort to get it in.

But that's the trouble.

Now, my only complaint against government is, being bodies charged 
with the responsibility of getting in law and order, never having 
isolated what puts lawlessness and disorder into the society, never 
having made any effort to understand it, but just shoots everybody. 
So my quarrel with them is their ethics are out.

My only quarrel with politics and political theories and political 
practices just sum up to the same thing: they do not produce an 
orderly society. Any system of politics which lets a madman rise to 
supreme power is an evil system.

Now, you as an auditor are only able to push ethics in or blame SP 
or PTS for your lack of results if you yourself have clean hands 
with your GAEs. If you yourself do not commit gross auditing errors, 
then you are perfectly at liberty to handle ethics. But as long as 
you yourself have any question, then you will never quite know. And 
this is the difference between a confident auditor and an 
unconfident auditor and is the primary difference.

"Is it my auditing or is it the case I'm auditing?" That is the 
unresolved question. "Is it my auditing which is getting no gain, or 
is it not possible to get gain on this case?"

And that is why I started this lecture by telling you I don't have 
to make any apologies now. We're taking them all the way to Clear, 
and there's nothing going to be changed of any kind whatsoever in 
the lower Grade processing, because the only time we're flumping and 
flubbing is when ethics go out or technology is not followed. It is 
omitted or added to. You omit pieces of technology or you add to 
technology, it will cease to work.

Right now they've got one going; they've got one going now which I'm 
sure is ended as of this afternoon. They've had one going about 
below 2.0: "If the tone arm goes below 2.0, then horrible things 
will happen, because a person who is a low-tone-arm case will never 
experience any gain except on Power Processing."

That is the wildest misinterpretation. I just wish they'd just 
forget about it. I don't care anything about it anymore. I don't 
want to hear about it anymore. If the tone arm goes to 1.0 and stays 
there, I don't want - even want an instructor to say "That is a 
peculiar and particular and interesting phenomenon." I don't want 
nobody to do nothing, because apparently this is a very dangerous 
cat, and it will suddenly run and get all over and scratch everybody 
up like mad.

You see, in actual fact, this tone arm quite often in processing 
will go through 7.0. There's 7.0. And you go down there, and you 
have to come back up over here. Or it goes all the way up through 
here and comes back on the dial there. And this quite commonly 
happens in Power Processing. And it'll happen in lower-grade 
processing too. This guy's bank's going up-up, up-up-up-up-up, up-
up-up-up-up-up-up, and all of a sudden you can't go any up-up-up. 
Well, don't despair, because you'll catch it over here. You see, 
bring it back over here to below 1.0. And all of a sudden you'll 
find it's going up-up-up, up-up-up. Cases are circular.

And the actual remark on this is that a chronic low-TA case - that 
is a symptom of rather chronic apathy; he's not a dangerous case; 
he's simply apathetic. A chronic low-tone-arm case, which is 
somebody who's chronically below 2.0, won't really get over it until 
he's on Power Processing. And that is the total substance of the 
remark that started this whole thing.

So, if I had a very low tone arm case, and I wanted to be very kind, 
I would run the Power Process on him which would bring his tone arm 
up, and then start him into auditing. You see, if I wanted to be 
very kind. But if I had any doubts about its success or anything 
like that, I would just audit him any old way. He's going to get 
some gains in an apathetic way.

That's an additive. People are trying to get interpretations about 
below 2.0 - "If the tone arm goes below 2.0 you do this or you do 
that, or if the tone arm goes below 2.0, you can't get on the 
Clearing Course or..." You know, it's wild. So a tone arm goes below 
2.0; it also goes to 7.0. I've seen an auditor practically faint 
when he's seen a tone arm... How the hell do you audit anybody at 
7.0? You can't get the meter to go through.

Actually, there is a way to do it. You throw your trim knob. You 
just flip your trim knob, and you'll come back on the dial. Of 
course, it's a totally inaccurate read, but you can make the meter 
go through 7.0 without catching it over - up to 6.0 and then over to 
1.0 and up. Throw your trim knob, and you'll throw him back on the 
dial. Then don't forget to compensate your meter before you say the 
next guy is released!

So there's an additive. There is an additive. I don't know how many 
people this additive has shot down in flames up to this moment. It's 
several, several. You know? There are some fat folders around, and 
so forth. And fortunately it isn't I finding all this, and so forth. 
It's I that found this below 2.0 thing, but it was [had] already been 
stated to me by somebody in the Qual Division that - this. There was 
a common denominator in those folders: They each one had a below-2.0 
trouble. And so I'm getting a shakedown of the relationship of a fat 
folder to a below-2.0 phenomena, just as a peculiarity that's going 
on at the moment. That's an additive. That's an additive.

Now, you get an omission, and an omission can be very, very deadly. 
We cease to have sessions that start and end. You know? We don't 
start any sessions anymore and we don't end any sessions anymore; we 
just sit down and start auditing, you know? Pretty wild, because it 
never completes a cycle of action for the pc and has a tendency to 
make him obsessively go on. That's how bad an omission could be.

But your little omissions can cause you equal amounts of trouble - 
your little omissions, you see?

How about the omission of acknowledging? Supposing you never 
acknowledged anything; you just omitted that totally: You'd destroy 
the entire technology. Do you see? It could be very serious.

But your problem, to get right back down to it again, is how can you 
be sure ... You see, it used to be that we had three problems here: 
Ron could be wrong, you see; and it could be the auditor; and it 
could be the pc, see? Well, now because of all the Clears, we have 
to drop the first one out. So therefore, it leaves an auditor with 
this problem. And I don't give it to you as a light thing; I give it 
to you as something that's probably worried quite a few of you from 
time to time: Is it the way you're applying the technology, or is it 
the pc you are auditing?

And I have seen that auditors - bless them - always err on the side 
that it's their own auditing. I have tried to reason with an auditor 
who was trying desperately to audit a PTS, who just kept on blaming 
her own auditing - couldn't even hear the technology of PTS because 
she was blaming her own auditing so hard. Yet her own auditing 
wasn't that bad. She was auditing a PTS. And it was very, very hard 
to convince this auditor that a PTS was the only reason somebody 
rollercoastered, unless the auditing was very "omitted" or 
"committed" along various lines. Do you follow? Very hard to 
convince this person there could be something wrong with the pc, 
because this person was too fixated on the idea that she really 
didn't know quite how to audit. Do you see that?

Now, therefore, you've got to be satisfied that you don't commit 
GAEs, and after that your judgment on an ethics problem will be 
sound. But until you are able to know completely yourself that your 
auditing is smooth and your technology is correct, you will not with 
any certainty be able to spot an ethics problem! Makes sense, huh?

Audience: Yes.

Now, that's the primary bugboo of the auditor. You're trying to help 
people. Now, is it something wrong with the person you're trying to 
help, or is something wrong with the way you're helping?

And there's a very easy way to decide this - very, very, very easy 
way to decide this - and that is to know what are the five GAEs.

Now, we say GAE, and we mean gross auditing error. There it is: a 
gross auditing error. And there are only 5 of them! You can't commit 
105 because there aren't 105. You can only commit 5! That's a good 
thing, because they can be spotted and isolated. And they are very, 
very elementary. Anybody could spot them.

You could make a tape of yourself auditing some pc and then listen 
to the tape back and know whether or not you committed GAEs. It's 
that elementary. First GAE, particularly, would surrender to that 
test: auditing cycle out.

Do you give an auditing command, have the pc answer it, and then 
acknowledge it? Elementary! Do you do that? Or do you give an 
auditing command, not let the pc answer it and acknowledge? Do you 
let the pc talk for half an hour before you finally wake up that you 
should acknowledge? Do you see? Or do you have this smoothly down? 
Can you do this thing?

Boy, it's an elementary thing there, isn't it? Well, not to do it is 
a gross auditing error. It's one of the reasons Scientology works, 
is because of its communication drill. Communication is a basic - so 
fundamental that when you use the communication cycle of action 
known in Scientology (man didn't know it) - you can just use a cycle 
of action and cure things up. It's the most remarkable thing.

You can sit down with the training drills which just handle a cycle 
of action and with a bunch of people that have just dropped into the 
org, or something of the sort, and two or three of them will get rid 
of some somatics and upsets and feel better. What's doing that? It's 
just the exercise of the drill itself.

So, woven through auditing are all kinds of little side benefits. 
But this is not a little side benefit. When you omit this one, man, 
you've had it! So, do you handle your comm cycle well? Or do you 
give an auditing command, not let it be answered, or make it be 
answered exhaustively, before you finally acknowledge? Or do you hit 
it on the button? Do you err over or under? Because if you err in 
not acknowledging, your pc will go into an obsessive outflow.

Wherever I see a pc who's just talking on and on and on and on and 
on and on and on, the auditor giving no commands - only four 
commands issued in a two-and-a-half-hour session, see? When I see 
this I know what's wrong: It's a GAE; the auditing cycle is out. The 
pc is trying to find that last step. Can't find that last step. And 
he's gotten so accustomed to this.

Now, some pcs are this way obsessively in life, but you, oddly 
enough, by a precise auditing cycle, snap them right out of it. A 
proper auditing command cycle, and so forth, will straighten them 
right up.

Now, you'll notice people out in the society - you should listen to 
their auditing cycles just for a gag. Does your auditing cycle sound 
anything like that? You should listen to a few of them, you know? 
Lean up against a lamppost with your back to the two that are 
discussing it all, or sit in the lobby of a hotel for a while. Just 
listen to those auditing cycles. (They're not auditing cycles; 
listen to comm cycles.) You'll be fascinated, man. You got a treat 
in store if you've never done this. You say, how could anybody call 
that communication?

Now, that's the first GAE.

Now, the second GAE is the repetitive auditing cycle is out. Now, 
the repetitive auditing cycle is quite something else than the 
auditing cycle. It's being able to do it again. And people who 
aren't able to do it again cannot give a repetitive auditing command 
on and on. They can't do it. So, they do what we call Q and A; they 
change. The pc makes a remark so they change the process. Every time 
the pc gives something offbeat, then the auditor changes the 
process. Do you see? They Q and A.

Here's an example of Q and A - or, well, just the inability to "Do 
birds fly? Do birds fly? Do birds fly?" and acknowledge it each time 
and so forth: It's "Do birds fly? Are the jolly little sparrows a-
wing? Are birds flopping about? Are birds? Have you ever been an 
ornithologist? Do you swim?" Where'd he go? See?

The Q and A is simply the shift with the pc. It leaves the pc in 
control of the session. The auditor starts out, "Do birds fly?"

And the pc says, "Yes. Yes. I had a canary once."

And the auditor says, "Where was that?"

Pc says, "In Des Moines."

And the auditor says, "Were you there when you were a child?"

If you ever listen to this as a gag going on - I mean, it really 
happens. When you listen to this going on you will begin to detect a 
note of exasperation in the pc's voice. A bit of asperity will enter 
at this point. "Well, yes, I lived there, when I was four."

Q and A, Q and A, Q and A. Drift.

You ask an auditor - an auditor who does this - you ask this auditor 
and you say to him, "Now, get the overt," and he comes back with the 
life story of the fellow's brother. Well, that'll be compounded of Q 
and A, but also - another one - he just wouldn't do what you said, 
you see? He wouldn't audit it at all. He didn't even come near it.

Now, the next GAE is just bad meter reading. And you would just be 
amazed; you would just be amazed. Until you have stood around 
teaching people to meter read, you'd just be amazed how in that 
group two or three of them won't even vaguely come near reading that 
meter.

If you ever want to find out what's wrong with some auditing session 
sometime, and you've got an HGC auditor and you're D of P or 
something like that, and you're tearing your hair out about this pc, 
remember these GAEs, man. You get suspicious about things, like "How 
about the meter?" Well, the auditor has been auditing the pc with 
his meter uncharged. Well, that would be an understandable error. 
But how about the fellow auditing the pc without the meter turned 
on? Could happen. How about the auditor auditing the pc without the 
cans plugged in? Now, that's what we mean when we say GAE. And you, 
in trying to examine auditing, will always err in the favor of being 
too reasonable about the thing.

You argue and argue, and you argue and argue, you talk and talk and 
talk with this auditor about the pc, and then you'll find out that 
the auditor doesn't believe in meters and so doesn't use them in his 
session, or something like this, see? I mean it's gross. And that's 
why we have gross, you see; it's a gross error. It's always 
something big, you see?

You're blowing your brains out trying to find this little thing: "Do 
you have the trim knob set exactly right?" and all that sort of 
thing. Trim knob set right? Why, the meter has been out of repair 
for the last two months - hasn't been functioning at all. Auditor 
rocks the meter to get his reads.

Now, an old, experienced Director of Processing like Mary Sue could 
tell you some wild ones. She's tried to run down, and tried to run 
down, and - you know, the mysterious nonrecovery of somebody, you 
see? And she's finally run it down to something like, well, they 
never turned on their meter. You know? I mean, it's incredible. Here 
she's beating her brains out trying to help the pc, you see, but - 
gross auditing error sitting right there.

Now, the fourth one impinges a bit on the second one. You told him 
to run one process and he ran something else. It goes worse than 
that. He is not able to read, understand and follow procedure. 
That's a simple test. That's a simple test. Can you read and 
understand an HCOB? See, that is a simple test.

You would just be surprised. When that gets to be a gross auditing 
error, the person didn't even read the HCOBs related to the 
processes they were supposed to be auditing. And to our shame it 
once happened here at Saint Hill. There was no checkouts required 
for a short period of time, many, many months ago. There were no 
checkouts required. Nobody in Tech or Qual is there now - not 
because of that totally. But before they audited the hottest 
processes in the world, nobody was requiring a checkout on them. 
Boy, that's a gross auditing error, man.

Now, one of the reasons tech was having a hard time in 1965 in 
organizations is there apparently wasn't a D of P anywhere in any 
organization in the world outside of Saint Hill that was requiring 
star-rated checkouts on the lower Grade processes his auditors were 
supposed to be running on the pcs. Tsk! Interesting, huh?

Oh, I get on to these things, and I follow them up, and don't think 
we're all bad. But that accounted for lack of Releases. Of course 
they weren't making any Releases; they weren't running any of the 
processes that released anybody. See, that's a gross auditing error, 
is not being able to read and comprehend what they're supposed to 
do.

Or, not reading it at all! See how gross this is? You say, "You 
don't - you just seem to be an awful long time, Mr. Jones, on the 
subject of making your - that ... that pc - you ... just making that 
pc a Grade 0. This seems to have been on ... this is going on to the 
third month. Seems to be just a little bit long ... long ... uh ... 
uh ... So what ... what - what's wrong? What are you doing?"

Well, actually, the way you can find out what he's doing: Is his 
auditing cycle out? His repetitive auditing cycle out? Is he reading 
the meter badly?

And what you're liable to find is something like number four: He has 
never run, to date, any of the processes that make a Grade 0 
Release. He's never run any of them. It's that - it's that which you 
normally find at the bottom of no results in auditing. Or it's an 
ethics problem.

And the fifth one is unable to handle and keep a pc in session.

Well, you'd say, well that automatically is covered in one, two, 
three, four. Oh, no, it is not! Who does that? Well, Ron does it, of 
course; he does everything else! No, that's something that you do; 
that is up to the auditor.

It is sometimes necessary to be quite forceful; its sometimes 
necessary to be quite persuasive; it's sometimes necessary to do 
most extraordinary things to handle and keep a pc in session.

For instance, you've got somebody who's very blowy. You're trying to 
pull some overts of one kind or another. This session is going 
rough, man, and you finally have to back up your back to the door, 
turn the lock, put the key in your pocket. The guy finally gives you 
the overts. See?

Now, this pc doesn't seem to be running well, and you just never 
take out a moment to find out why, or examine the pc, or talk about 
anything, or have any two-way comm. You see that the pc is 
disinterested; you don't make it your business to find out "Why is 
the pc disinterested?" Pc can't seem to answer the question; for the 
last four hours of auditing, doesn't seem to have had any answer to 
the auditing question; is sitting in the chair crying. Why, four 
hours ago, didn't you wonder why this pc was unhappy? Do you see?

Now, that's actually a matter of quick perception. I used to say 
that it used to take me about an hour - or I could find from forty-
five minutes to an hour and a half before the auditors in the org 
would notice that an ARC break was coming or a blow was going to 
occur. It was forty-five minutes to an hour and a half. And I used 
to do this with a squawk box, you know, patrol. We used to listen in 
on the sessions, and so forth. I could find it on an average of 
forty-five minutes to an hour and a half before the auditor noticed 
it. "That pc is going to blow. That pc is ARC broken. That's coming 
right over the hill." Just from tone of voice.

Well, the auditor in this particular instance had the advantage of 
sitting across from the pc, having a meter in his hands, actually 
being able to observe what the pc was doing, do you see, and didn't 
notice it for another forty-five minutes or an hour and a half, 
until it became terribly obvious. So you want to pick up your 
perception. And that is a place where nearly all auditors fall down 
a bit. Pick up the perception of what's going on with the pc. Be a 
little bit interested in what's going on with the pc, and do 
something about it. And don't do so much that you completely destroy 
all effects of processing, but do enough to keep the pc in session.

Now, what is in session? Well, he's willing to sit there and answer 
the auditing question; he's fairly cheerful, and so on. It has some 
precision definitions, but, crudely, a pc ought to be fairly happy 
about being audited, even when he is running through sadness. So 
that would be ability to look at the pc and see what was going on 
with the pc. That comes under the heading of willingness to confront 
a pc, doesn't it?

Well, those are the gross auditing errors: auditing cycle out; 
repetitive auditing cycle out; bad meter reading; not able to read, 
understand and follow procedures or bulletins or auditing 
directions; and five, unable to handle and keep a pc in session. And 
those are the five gross auditing errors.

You can verify, then, your own auditing. And if you look over the 
whole thing, and you look over the thing and you say to yourself, 
"Well, I do those things pretty well," now you know whether the pc 
is or is not an ethics case. Because if you do those things well, 
and the pc doesn't run well, that pc is an ethics case every time. 
Do you see?

Now, there's how you disentangle the mystery.

The whole problem of ethics is a universal problem. It is a problem 
in mental troubles. Ethics would never get in on discipline alone. 
Never! It would only get worse.

Justice can never occur in the absence of an understanding of the 
human mind. Never! You get nothing but goofs.

Now, that doesn't necessarily make somebody who is an expert on the 
human mind, such as a Scientologist, the only person who should have 
anything to do with justice on the planet. Or does it?

But I would not for a moment guide you over into a realm of high 
specialization in the field of justice, because ethics simply exists 
to get tech in. Once you've got tech in you no longer need justice.

We are the only road which leaves artificial measures of law and 
order behind us. And it's only the fact that we are handling 
aberration itself that makes it necessary for us to be in the zone 
of ethics now. The amount of ethics action necessary in actual OTs 
would be practically zero. Big difference.

And we notice that we are not having any trouble with Clears. I 
noticed earlier that the divisional statistics exactly matched the 
case state of each Divisional Secretary - how far he had gone, or he 
or she had gone, toward Clear. Was very interesting.

So therefore, the problem of justice, the problem of ethics, is 
involved with the problem of human aberration. Unless you've solved 
the later, the former can never be solved. Not all the gunpowder in 
the world could blow people into being good, because they're good 
naturally, and they resent gunpowder.

So, there, also, is how you can solve the problem of whether or not 
you are a good auditor or not, and why you should solve the problem. 
And I hope this has been of some assistance to you.

Thank you.

========END OF LECTURE========



