Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 24 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.



There is a subject of considerable interest to us, which is quite a remarkable subject, and that is group auditing. There are a number of things to be known about this.

A group auditor is one who stands in front of, sits in front of, or relays by loudspeaker system to a group (and a group consists of two or more people), auditing, so as to improve their condition of beingness as thetans. That is a full, complete definition of a group auditor.

The above is the definition of group auditor.

If he’s there to improve their condition, he will of course do his group auditing well. If he is simply standing there giving rote commands, he might do something too, because the mechanics of auditing will carry forward a great distance. But if he really wants to make people more cheerful, better, put them up into an operative band, change their condition, make the able more able, then he recognizes as he audits a group that he is auditing a number of preclears and he is auditing them collectively and individually all at one time, and a good group auditor recognizes that this is not unlike driving a twenty-mule team — it’s a trick. So, some people are good group auditors. They recognize what it takes to do it, they don’t flinch, and they can do it. And there are some who stand up at the front of a room and give auditing commands, but whom you’d hardly call group auditors. Now what are the conditions under which group auditing is best done:

Certain conditions are required under which group auditing is best done.

First, the atmosphere should be quiet. And the methods of ingress into the group auditing room, such as doors, windows, chimneys, and skylights, should be to some degree policed so that we don’t get people walking into the session. And this would include, under a sub-heading, the fact that people don’t come late to a group auditing session. A group auditor who knows his business simply follows that as a rule. He doesn’t let people come late. They just don’t come. When they get there they will find the next group auditing session is next Thursday, which fact might be announced on the door. He impresses this upon his people and upon his group, that people mustn’t come stumbling in fifteen or twenty minutes after the group auditing starts, fall over a couple of chairs, fall over a couple of preclears, drop a couple of ashtrays, step on a couple of ashtrays, and then drop their pocketbook, upset the chair nudge the fellow in front of them so they can say “excuse me”, and, in other words, interrupt the session. That is because of the things that can happen by reason of that. You might have somebody sitting there in the back of the room where these people came in and sat down, who was just at that moment getting into something that was pretty darned hard to handle and was having to wrestle it with himself. You were there helping him as a group auditor, true, and your next command would have a tendency to straighten this up, but this individual has started to flounder, and all of a sudden somebody comes in and helps him out by falling all over him. This introduces a randomity of unpredicted motion into the environment which is not conducive to that person’s case improvement.

So, the Group Auditor has a Code all of his own which happens to be the Auditor’s Code, but the Group Auditor’s Code has some more things to it. And amongst those things is: People don’t ever come late to a Group Auditing Session.

No interruptions should be allowed once the session begins.

Just to give a few other little items on this Code — he doesn’t audit with processes which establish long comm lags. He avoids processes which do this on individual preclears. If he knows that a certain process produces a long communication lag on individual preclears here and there, he certainly avoids it in auditing a group. He audits primarily with techniques which will discover every person in the group alert at the end of an hour’s processing. And that certainly doesn’t include anything that will give somebody a twenty-two hours’ comm lag.

He doesn’t audit with processes which establish long comm lags.

Another part of his Code is: He must be willing to grant beingness to the Group. He isn’t a lion tamer sitting up there with a bunch of lions about to pounce on him. He is somebody who is standing up in front of a group willing to grant beingness to that group. And as he grants beingness to the group, so the group recovers. If he is willing to grant beingness to a group, a great many things immediately fall into line. And these things follow: He gives his commands in a clear, distinct voice, and if he notices that people in one part of the room or another look at him suddenly after he has given the command, or look at him questioningly, he simply repeats the command for the whole group. In other words, his mission is to get that command through and registered.

He must be willing to grant beingness to the Group. His mission is to get the auditing command through and registered.

He recognizes and must recognize, that the people to whom he is talking in this group are not an audience. They are a number of people who are in a greater or lesser degree involved in recognizing looking at or resolving problems relating to their beingness, and as such, of course, are slightly out of communication with him. He must recognize this just as in an individual session he has to give his commands clearly, distinctly and get them answered. In a group auditing session, he doesn’t have the answer. He doesn’t get that answer that says, “Yes, I’ve got that.” Yes, I’ve finished that, and so forth. Therefore, he must do all of his auditing on such a basis that it obviates those answers. You see, he gives a command, and he’s not going to get a reply from his preclear, and so he must therefore take enormous precautions, actually very exaggerated precautions, to make sure that every word he says is clearly registered to the most anaten (Anaten: an abbreviation of “analytical attenuation”, meaning a diminution or weakening of the analytical awareness of an individual for a brief or extensive period of time) person in the entire group. His words must register. He must also be careful to give his commands in such a way as not to give a number of failures to one or more individuals in the group. For instance, he says, “Now get a place, get a place where you are not… Just contact that place.” And he shouldn’t give another, contradictory command until he’s sure that everybody in the group has found at least one location. Let’s take an example of that. He says, “Get a place where you are not.” And he waits for a moment, and several people in the group already have spotted this place with accuracy, and so he says, “Get one place certainly, and then some more.” Now, what he has done is to take those five, six, eight people in the group who did not find that one place right now right away, and he let it be all right for them to go on and comm lag on it. And he still made it all right for the remainder of the group to go on and get other places.

One does not need to have a stylized patter in order to do this, but that does happen to be a very stylized patter. “Get one place, one place for sure … and when you’ve got that one place, get some more, and get some more places.”

He is facing people who are interested in finding out about themselves rather than just an audience. He must take enormous precautions to make sure that every word he says is clearly registered. He must also be careful to give his commands in such a way as not to give a number of failures to one or more individuals in the group.

Now, if the auditor is willing to grant beingness to the group, he’ll be heard all the way through the group, and if he’s not willing to grant beingness to the group, he won’t be heard all the way through the group.

Furthermore, if he’s not willing to grant beingness to the group, he’ll find himself, willy-nilly, shifting processes halfway through. He suddenly decides he’d better run something else. He’d better run something tricky. He’d better run something that’s very stunty. We were doing all right, we were spotting the walls of the room, we were doing Group Opening Procedure which, given in the Group Auditor’s Handbook (Group Auditor’s Handbook: This was a 1954 compilation of group auditing sessions resulting from the Advanced Clinical Courses of that year), is a very precise process. The auditor got that going fairly well, had just gotten that well started — and he decides — Well, let’s shift off to some… Ah! Duplication by Attention! All right. Look at the right wall, look at the left wall, look at the right wall, look at the left wall, look at the right wall, look at the left wall… uh… I don’t know, that doesn’t seem to be getting very far. Let’s see — what really should we do. And he switches to another process and another.

The group by this time is getting sort of restless. What’s basically the trouble here? Is it the fact that the man doesn’t know what he’s doing? Well, it could be to some slight degree. But why doesn’t he know what he’s doing? Every single one of those commands and theory behind it can be found in the publications of Scientology. What’s he doing not knowing what he’s doing? Well I’ll tell you what he’s doing. He’s trying not to grant beingness to that group. And there will be people in that group who are worried about granting beingness to the group and all these people getting bright and improving and becoming thetans and flying around and demoniacally attacking people and “You shouldn’t make everybody free like that, you know.”

And these people will step on ashtrays, upset chairs, come late, get up in the middle of a group session and open and close windows, open and close doors, and then we discover, of course, that they don’t want to have beingness granted to them. But particularly, they are worried about the group session going on with this individual granting all that beingness to all these people and improving all these people, and if all these people improved, why, goodness knows what would happen — something horrible would happen, competition would get too high or something of the sort, or something dreadful would occur. That’s the computation that it’s running on when bad auditing commands are used, and don’t ever think otherwise. No, don’t say, Well, he just doesn’t know. Every one of those homo-sapiens, individualized the way he is to an Only-One computation, has some facet of his beingness which is refusing to grant beingness. Every man alive has it to some degree, otherwise he’d never have a game or a contact. There’s always “the other side”. He isn’t going to grant any beingness to the Princeton football team — that sort of thing. And when you exaggerate this consistently and continually, you’ll get somebody who doesn’t want to have any beingness granted to anybody anywhere, and so before he does some group auditing, he won’t bother to read over the way you do it. And if he does, he’ll do something else. And he won’t study up on his subject, he won’t look over his people, and he won’t audit in such a way as to make them improve or win, and you will find, by the way, that his group session will not be well attended. A group auditor’s group session cannot be anything but well attended. They will be continually well attended, and they will increase in their attendance, to the degree that the individual is willing to grant beingness to people, in other words, do a good job.

If you are willing to grant beingness to the group, you’ll be heard all the way through the group. You will take a process all the way through to the end and not be shifting processes halfway through.

That’s the long and short of it, and that’s a very uncompromising statement, and one could say that there are a lot of things which mitigate this statement, but I’ll argue you out of them. The truth of the matter is that it comes down just to the granting of beingness. He will or he won’t.

Now, can that be remedied with him? Yes, when he has a little more freedom. Just a standard auditing session as given in the Group Auditor’s Handbook will bring him up to a point where he will grant more beingness to people. It will do this.

You could run this as a straight process, as a group session — just “grant some beingness to the front walls”, “some beingness to the back walls”. You could do this if you wanted to. But again, this is putting too much significance into the process.

The reason anyone is not granting beingness is that he himself is enchained and enslaved and he feels himself attacked to some degree by the environment, and you’ve got to get him up to the point where he has a little more operating margin in his own survival, and if he has a little survival margin he’s willing to let somebody else survive. He begins to treat survival as a commodity. There are only five quarts of it in the world, and he’s darned if anybody’s going to get any part of those five quarts, because he knows he needs it all himself. Right on this point you can tell immediately a good auditor and a bad one. So, there is a case computation at the bottom of group auditing ability.

The reason anyone is not granting beingness is that he himself is enchained and enslaved and he feels himself attacked to some degree by the environment.

An individual who is afraid of effort is an accurate measure of this. People recognize instinctively, that a fear of effort, an unwillingness to put out effort, goes right along with “bad off”, “won’t grant beingness”, “got to slow other people down too”. So, do we have a group auditor who sits back and puts his feet on the desk and audits a group? Oh no, we don’t. The group won’t get better, won’t recover, won’t do anything. Why? They’ll sit there and run the commands because they’ve heard that Scientology is a good thing, but they will say, This guy doesn’t care. He isn’t interested.

There is no necromancy involved here. We don’t have a beam of energy coming out from the group auditor settling like a little star over the head of every person. That is not the case in point. But there’s another case in point:

There’s the simple matter of duplication of the communication. Why do people recognize this rather instinctively, that a person doesn’t care, if he hasn’t energy or effort? Well, here’s this individual. He seems to have some vitality. The communication line has as its Source Point VITALITY. And whatever there is at Effect point at the beginning, it will at least wind up at the end with vitality. If you’ve ever talked to somebody for a while in a rather bored tone of voice, you found them after a while getting bored. This is just “Q and A” (Q and A: From “Question and Answer”. This term originally referred to the fact that the answer to the question is the question. Q and A has been used as the term for “changing when the preclear changes”. It here refers to the preclear duplicating the beingness of the auditor). Have you ever listened to somebody who was very electrifying — a William Jennings Bryan sort of a speaker — pound and howl and so forth — and when you look at an audience that’s been talked to this way — they’re aroused, they definitely are aroused. The man didn’t say anything logical at all at any time during the whole time he was talking, and yet just simply the fact that they are duplicating a speaker who seems to have some vitality comes on through to the audience and seems to give them some vitality. But does it give them some vitality — no, they are simply duplicating it.

Audience duplicate the effort and vitality of the speaker.

Now a group auditor could sit down and talk to the group. As a matter of fact (this is a very dangerous thing to tell a group auditor) this actually brings about a little bit better duplication, because the group is sitting down. But if he is sitting down, think of how much now his voice has to do. He can’t depend on anything else to do anything for him. Everything he does must be contained in his voice. Everything he THINKS must be contained in his voice. Oh, you say, this then requires an actor. Yep. If you’re not willing to be various things, and if you can’t be various things at will, you actually haven’t even got any business auditing. Why? Because in that case you’re trying to keep things from being. And the first person you’re trying to keep from being is you. And if you’re trying to keep you from being, to any marked degree, you will, on a duplication basis, restimulate this fact on the other end of the line. You’ll keep others from being. So a group auditor could sit down. I don’t mean he should or must.

A group auditor could sit down, but then his voice has to do a lot more work.

As a matter of fact the best results I have ever gotten in group auditing sessions was actually walking up and down in front of a group and picking them out every now and then singly — “Did you get that all right?” etc. And the group tone just starts going up, and then the fact that they are doing drills which are just dynamite of course in themselves will just practically lift them right straight out of their heads. In one of the last broad group auditing sessions I did I came away from the mike and I was simply talking to the crowd and I was really trying to do something for their cases and so forth, and I was quite interested because it was getting on down toward the end of the series of group sessions. And I got the report afterwards: that there were more people exteriorized during that particular session than in any other single session I had given. Well, here I was feeling more alive, interested, urgent about what was going on and that in itself was communicating, and it was communicating very strongly.

The beingness of the group auditor communicates strongly to the group.

A group auditor who has no wish to have anything happen, however, will be disappointed if he sits there and reads the commands in a flat dull dead voice out of the Group Auditor’s Handbook, to a crowd of people. He will still get some results. This has been tested out. We took the worst group auditor you ever saw or ever heard of and gave him some commands that were not too well written, and we sent him out to audit. His style was, “Well, I’ve got some commands here now… I’ve got some commands… let’s see now … uh… let’s see… hum… uh… look at the front of the room… it says here… lookattherightwall …” And this guy still got some results!

So, what we’re doing with just the processes themselves is fabulous.

Something important to know about group auditing is this: If you’re afraid of a crowd, you won’t want to grant beingness to them, because that’s why you’re afraid of them. You’re sure that they’re about to interrupt you. You’re sure that they’re about to jump over the seats and attack you. If you’re in that frame of mind toward a group, you will not be heard clearly through the group, you’ll have a tendency to change techniques, and your attention hunger will probably cause you to drop ashtrays, lose your place, and other wild things.

If you’re afraid of a crowd, you won’t want to grant beingness to them, because that’s why you’re afraid of them.

Now let’s look at this thing called “stage fright”, and how a person could resolve it. One way he could resolve it is simply by some kind of creative processing. Just do mockups on being scared to death — body reacting, jumping, and so forth — but that’s a very crude way to handle stage fright.

The best way to cure stage fright is to walk up on a stage before a vast number of people and do your best, and after you’ve done that a few times you recognize that this is an As-is-ness, this condition and generally everything connected with it, the strain and so forth, will blow. You just recognize clearly that you’re under strain when you talk to this audience. You’re just under strain and so what. “So I’m under strain when I talk to the audience” — and you won’t be. All it is is fear of what you will do, that you might do something unpredicted, or something strange might occur, and after you’ve done this a few times you discover that no strange things occur, that you get away with it every time. You survive, and you become quite accomplished.

The best way to cure stage fright is to walk up on a stage before a vast number of people and do your best.

There’s something else that you could do to improve your capabilities as a group auditor. And that is beingnesses. If you could just practice beingness. You could be actors and be therapists and be swamis and be this kind of thing and be that kind of thing, and just work on it on kind of a gradient scale until you got the idea you could be anything. You could have this run on you, you see, in processing, and this would handle stage fright too, because a person with stage fright is being somebody who has stage fright. That’s all there is to it. The answer to the problem is the exact problem.

You may also practice beingness to overcome stage fright.

The whole subject of Group Auditing, then, involves itself today not so much with a knowledge of technique, but involves itself with a stage presence on the part of the group auditor and his command over the group itself. If he’s willing for the group to make gains, they’ll make gains. If he’s interested in giving them wins, they’ll have wins. If he’s interested in having a group, he’ll have one. It’s a very odd thing, but the best auditors have no difficulty in collecting groups.

Now, you can’t have a feeling of embarrassment toward your fellow man actually and be able to walk up to him on the street and tell him anything or get him to do anything. As long as you have an embarrassment toward people, you’ll have difficulty collecting a group or running a group or anything of this sort. Well, what is this quantity called embarrassment? It’s a matter of exhibition.

As long as you have an embarrassment toward people, you’ll have difficulty collecting a group or running a group.

Here we have appearance and disappearance as a dichotomy. And a group auditor is somebody who has to be willing to appear, and if one has been compulsively made to appear many, many times against his will — one of his mother’s favorite phrases might have been, “Look at you. Here you are dirty from head to foot and I just cleaned you up. Look at you! You’re appearing, you little swine!” — some gentle upbringing of this character will tend to promote embarrassment. But you shouldn’t go looking, for the answer to embarrassment, into deep-seated significances. The embarrassment is that the fellow is there, kind of apologizing for his presence, and trying to disappear, at the same time. That’s the As-is-ness of embarrassment. And that’s just an As-is-ness. We don’t care where it came from. He’s apologizing. So, one of the first things you could do is simply not apologize for your presence. You might expect people to apologize for theirs, but don’t you apologize for yours. You’re here, and their hard luck they’re there too or their good luck that they’re there.

But if a fellow’s in really good shape, why this is the sort of an atmosphere that goes around a group session — this atmosphere says: “I’m here and you’re right there and I’m real glad to see ya and you’re sitting there and that’s awful unlucky for you if you’re sick because you’re going to get well anyway and you could come in and sit down and not run any of the commands at all and you’d still improve, naturally. That’s a matter of course. And I’m sorry you’ve got some things to be ashamed of, but you know, I haven’t got a single one” — that sort of an atmosphere. A fairly calm atmosphere rather than an excited, ecstatic atmosphere. But even an excited, ecstatic atmosphere or a swami atmosphere or an Amie Semple McPherson atmosphere is better than somebody standing there and saying, “You know I’m sorry I’m up here visible.”

One of the first things you could do is simply not apologize for your presence.

So the best way to get into the groove of group auditing is to get your case in good shape just exactly as you would get your case into good shape, just with standard processing — nothing peculiar, nothing slanted, nothing odd or unusual run on it, just get in good shape. You’re a little freer, and as you become freer then you are more competent to let yourself appear.

And the other thing that goes right along with that and is not at all dependent on you getting your case in good shape, is the fact that you just go on making public appearances and group auditing people with this postulate: Everybody’s glad to see me, they’re very happy to hear me talk, and I’m here and I know at the same time I’m scared to death and that’s the As-is- ness of it, so what, but I’m putting on a good show anyhow — and the next thing you know, why, all of that is gone, all that feeling of strain and tension is gone, and you’ll go on and give the group a session.

Be positive in your thinking.

But you give sessions to people to make them better, not to be somebody standing on a stage running off a set of words. You have reason, purpose and meaning in what you are doing and consider it a personal affront if somebody in this group did not immediately get totally improved after a couple of hours’ processing. That’s a personal affront, and you treat it as such when they tell you about it. “You mean you’ve come to one of my sessions and not gotten big gains? Humph!” and, “Well I’ll let you come to another session but don’t pull this again.”



Be willing to grant beingness to yourself, to others, and to the group.



Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 23 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.



This happens to be the most important subject that you will cover in auditing. It may not be the most important subject in the universe, but it is the most important subject in auditing. This is a Step One, Two-Way Communication procedure. And this is the relatively advanced procedure of conducting a two-way communication, and someone who would have no concept of the four conditions of existence would not be remotely capable of running this process, therefore this would not come at the very early part of one’s study, although Step One itself comes early in training.

This requires two-way communication — every iron you can throw into the fire.

Here we look at this process as applied to oneself. This process boils down to looking at your condition as it is at this very moment.

It requires all of your knowledge of Scientology and its theory and practice, to conduct an adequate two-way communication with the preclear, because if you do that you can, just by that and with no further process, resolve his case in a relatively short time. So, this must be an extremely important process we are talking about here. It requires all of the knowingness you have of Scientology in order to do it. It is done by a clever auditor. It is not a process which is done by a fellow who, as his furthest effort of cognition toward the preclear, reads off a series of commands. It requires a continuous communication with the preclear — a two-way communication with the preclear. It requires that you establish it and that you maintain it and that you conduct it in such a fashion that the elements which compose the preclear’s difficulty are vanished. Just by carrying on a two-way communication with the preclear, you can cause any difficulty he is having, such as non-exteriorization, such as a failure to take responsibility in other Dynamics, and so on, whatever his difficulties, you can conduct a two-way communication in such a way as to make those difficulties vanish. You will have just as much good fortune with this process as you are willing to be a clever auditor and to follow the exact rules of this.

You can conduct a two-way communication with yourself. You want to know about your condition in different ways. You then listen to yourself very carefully. You may even write down the way you have formulated the question, and the response you get from yourself. The whole idea is to make the difficulties vanish. This is another way of meditating.

The primary difficulty with this process Two-Way Communication is that it apparently is entirely permissive, it apparently can wander into any field, topic, subject, address anything — thereby an individual who is not cognizant of its very, very precise fundamentals would go immediately astray. He would go as far astray as men have gone far astray. It’s a process which you can easily get entangled about. It’s a process which you can be argued with about.

This is a very permissive procedure, but at the same time it has very precise fundamentals that you must follow to not go astray.

A two-way communication could be a very broad field, but it has a particular precision area where you as an auditor can concentrate. If you know the exact mechanics of what you are doing, used cleverly, this becomes the best process you ever had. When you don’t know its mechanics, and you don’t use it cleverly, it becomes the gummiest, most misunderstood, non-advancing sort of a process you ever ran into. So again, here is a process that requires judgement yet is very easy to do.

You should know the exact mechanics of what you are doing and use it cleverly. This process requires judgment.

The part of Two-Way Communication we are taking up here could be given a name all of its own, and we would call it DESCRIPTION PROCESSING. It could be given this name, but it’s likely to get entirely lost if we always refer to it by this name. In the first place Description Processing would not be its entire description name. It would have to be DESCRIPTION RIGHT NOW Processing. But we had better call it a process known as Two-Way Communication, which is just exactly what it is labelled under Step One of Intensive Procedure, (Intensive Procedure: The Standard Operating Procedure, 1954, given in The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard.) and this comes at this distance into this material because it uses every single thing that you know about Scientology. And the main thing that it uses is this factor: If you establish the As-is-ness of your preclear’s condition to his satisfaction it will vanish. And you don’t establish its As-is-ness by tracing its consequences, by tracing its basics, by tracing its significances, by discovering what lies under the thing that lies under the thing that lies under the back of beyond the other side of, or “Let’s change it all, change it all, change it all,” because what will happen? The process will persist won’t it? This is a tricky one, then. It is a process which actually and overtly processes and achieves Alter-is-ness, by using nothing but As-is-ness. You can get a change of case with the preclear very simply, solely by taking his case as it is right now. We want right now, no place else, we want to know how it is right now.

This process is about describing the condition right now. It uses every single principle of Scientology. If you establish the As-is-ness of your condition to your satisfaction it will vanish. You do not dive into anything or change anything. You simply take up the case as it is right now.

The key question of this process can be codified. The process is not sloppy, it’s not all over the place, it is highly precise, and the key question is:

How does it seem to you now?

The key question is very precise: How does it seem to you now?

You could just go on asking this question. That is all you want the preclear to give you. How does it actually seem to him right now? If he tells you about the room, or a manifestation of some sort, or something he likes, or something he dislikes, or something he knows or doesn’t know — whatever it is — what you want, and all that you want from the preclear about it in this process is how actually does it seem to him right now.

And by doing exactly that, you get change, change, change in the preclear, at a very fast rate — by doing what? — by asking for nothing but an As-is-ness. What is the condition as it is right this instant?

The response that comes back could be anything, which is fine. You ask for nothing but AS-IS-NESS: What is the condition as it is right this instant?

If you were a very, very clever auditor, all you would have to do is to take this basic question, How does it seem to you now, and couch it in a thousand different guises, always, always pointing straight at this one, that we want this individual to discuss exactly how it is. We want to know about it. And we don’t want any romance, we don’t want any embroidery, we don’t want any alteration so as to get our sympathy. We don’t want any super-pressure on us so that we will do something. All we want to know is how it is. That takes clever auditing.

You may couch the basic question in a thousand different guises. You simply discuss exactly how it is. You don’t want any embroidery, desire for sympathy, or super-pressure to do something. All you want to know is how it is.

It’s quite a fascinating thing to watch a preclear come into cognition — not recognition, because he probably never knew it before (re-cognition would be “I knew it but I forgot it”). Conditions exist through him, around him, above him, below him — considerations exist of which he has no cognition. These have come into beingness without any understanding whatsoever on his part. He’s never seen them before and yet they’re right there, so what we’re interested in is cognition — looking at it — and we want the As-is-ness of any and every condition which this fellow has.

You come to know about conditions that exist through you and around you; and considerations that have come into beingness without any understanding whatsoever on your part.

The preclear begins to change very rapidly. The first thing you know he is saying, “Well, there’s nothing wrong with my throat!” … “The back of my head’s perfectly alive.” If he doesn’t know the formula of what you’re doing, and he doesn’t track with it at all, and he doesn’t know Scientology, you have ceased at that moment to be entirely human as far as he’s concerned.

Now I have run this process on preclears who were intensely resistive to auditing, who knew nothing could happen, who generally finished up sessions saying nothing happened, and I received the most amazing sort of result. The person knew something had happened. Cognition had occurred. And it had occurred with considerable action. The person knew this extremely well, that something had happened. You can’t run this on anybody without changing his condition. It’s impossible to do so. Even if you ran it poorly, you’d change his condition.

This process brings about excellent results.

Running this process, you could do this occasionally. You could throw in where and when. Not often or repetitively. Once in a while. (Let’s not stick him back on the time track.) And recognize well that if he spots this thing even vaguely in the time and place where it began, you are likely to get a whole chain of things blowing, but we are not primarily interested in that, because where, and what, is present time. Time is not just beginningless and endless. It would seem so, but time is a continuing postulate. It is a postulate which continues to be postulated. All time is now. What we call the future, which is entirely hypothetical, is what will be, and that is not an As-is-ness. You could have an As-is-ness about the future, such as “I am worried about the future,” but you don’t actually have a future in that preclear. And as far as the past is concerned, it has no more actual validity than the future. All that exists of the past is what is in the present. And if it’s not in the present, so what? You could say, well, it might come into the present. No, it won’t. Not if you’ve got the present straightened out. If you have a preclear in a continuous state of beingness, in this present, which is rising and getting better, and his cognition is better and better and better — you’re turning on his knowingness. And if you turn on his knowingness in the present, his knowingness about the past will increase markedly.

You are interested in present time only but when and where something began may be checked sometimes. Time is a continuing postulate. All that exists of the past is what is in the present.

I’ve had a preclear start out with a statement like, “I am a body, I know I am a body and nothing but a body”, and tell me he has “heard things about Scientology and exteriorization” and so forth, and he recites all kinds of things he has picked up from the materialistic practitioners. Well, I read in a psychiatric text once upon a time (this is their knowingness level on this) that people occasionally had the delusion that they were not in their bodies, and that psychiatry used electric shock to move them back into their bodies. This would be more or less the level of practice of monkeys hanging from their tails — they really shouldn’t be fooling around with such things as the spirit. These practitioners sat in their chairs for fifty years and for, I’d say, several million if not several billion hours, and they didn’t notice this? Well they were starting out on the basic premise that man is mud is mud is mud, he’s a body, and there’s nothing you can do about it anyway — and going at it from this angle they were not likely to find out much of anything but the fact that there does happen to be some mud around.

Spiritual and physical phenomena are integrated with each other.

The As-is-ness of the preclear was what was in the road of all the materialistic approaches to the field of healing. This is not to imply that a medical doctor is out of order in practicing on broken bones, obstetrics and such things — in other words mechanical structure — but when it comes over to his doing something about the mind, he has to deal with the spirit, because there isn’t any mind. That was the thing they never learned about. They didn’t find out that what they were studying didn’t exist. They were studying a lump of computing machine made out of neurons and cyclotrons or something of the sort. Well, they could have studied it forever and never found out anything about it, because it has no As-is-ness. They could go on describing it forever, and of course it would continue to persist because it is itself an Alter-is-ness.

The spiritual phenomenon cannot be understood through physical phenomenon. It has to be understood directly.

Well, don’t you make the same mistake with a preclear. Don’t go chasing after all the endless significances and symptoms — in other words, Alter-is-ness, Alter-is-ness, Alter-is- ness — don’t make the mistake of addressing this, because all you will do is perpetuate the condition. Just don’t make that mistake. What you want to do is quite something else.

Don’t go chasing after all the endless significances and symptoms.

You want to find out how it seems right now. You don’t want any action on the part of this preclear who wants to go chasing after significances. He is so fixed on the idea of being an observer that let’s let him observe. So, there’s a white area. He says, “Uh… I don’t know… the back of the leg’s kind of white and the front of the leg’s kind of dark. And there seems to be something shooting up through the leg.” “Well, how does it seem to you now?” Keep him looking at it, keep him looking at it now. You just want him to describe it and describe it and describe it. And then communicate and communicate and communicate and communicate, and we don’t care if we seem to waste some time with it. So, he goes off into some wild excursion, something like, “Well, it seems to me like … I don’t know, I can’t quite look at the room when that pain is on. I try to look at the room. I wonder why that is. I wonder why that is. I’ve had a lot of speculation as to why this is.” You can let him talk for a while. It’s burning time, but remember you’re preserving a two-way communication, and throughout this process you’re preserving a two-way communication, and that is its keynote and that is why it continues to work so easily. Your preclear does not seem to be under duress at any time. Believe me, is he interested in his conditions! And in Description Processing you simply use that overtly to get him to describe them as they are.

You are interested in your condition. You simply use that overtly to look at your condition and describe it as it is.

But this requires a certain sensitivity on the part of an auditor. He’s got to know when the preclear starts weaving the fancy tales. How is he going to know this? The condition does not alter. That’s an interesting one, isn’t it? He’s describing how horrible it is. He goes on and describes this and describes it and describes it and describes it for three or four minutes, and there’s no change at all. He describes it for a few more minutes and there’s no change at all.

Don’t shoot him.

You could ask him how his feet seem to him. Get him off that subject, because you hit a lying machine, and if you’ll just get his attention off of it, why, maybe you’ll get some straight answers.

If you are not getting straight answers, don’t worry, just change the subject to some other aspect of the condition.

This is where you learn about people. But in what framework are you learning about people? You’re going entirely on the very, very basic material of the four conditions of existence. You will see a person run this cycle over and over and over as he does Description Processing. People become so fantastically patterned, they are so predictable when they start this sort of thing — and they become very easy to process. This is not restimulative, because you’re not trying to change the preclear. You’re trying to find out how he is. You can do this for hours. Cognitions will occur, such as, that he’s actually had a migraine headache for years and he didn’t even know it, except that all of a sudden it stopped. All of a sudden, he said, “Wait a minute. What’s happened to this pain? I didn’t ever know I had a pain here.” That sort of things happens in this type of processing.

You’re going entirely on the very, very basic material of the four conditions of existence.

“Description Right Now” Processing — Two-way Communication: Step One. This is how you get them into communication, how you keep them in communication and why you keep them in communication along this particular line. You could perform this in 8-C Opening Procedure, but you’re simply maintaining a two-way communication. “How does this (part of the room) seem to you now?” You’re trying to get the exact condition at that moment which he is observing. You will get continuous change. You are undoing all the change he has put into the condition. But it undoes with great rapidity, so there is some hope after all.

You’re trying to get the exact condition at that moment which he is observing. As a result you will get continuous change.



There is a very important lesson to be learned from this chapter. The spiritual phenomenon cannot be understood through physical phenomenon. It has to be understood directly. So, don’t go chasing after all the endless significances and symptoms. You simply discuss exactly how it is at this moment. You don’t want any embroidery, desire for sympathy, or super-pressure to do something. All you want to know is how it seems right now. You will get continuous change.



Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 22 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.



Spotting Spots in Space and the Remedy of Havingness is itself a total process. It has many ramifications. It is, you might say, a family of processes. There are many such families of processes, but actually it belongs to the family that we would call Opening Procedure of 8-C or the Opening Procedure family. This is actually a low order of Change of Space, so it belongs also to another family, it belongs to a Duplication family, since Change of Space is actually a dramatization of the formula of communication.

A spot is a location in space. It must be occupied by something to be a location. That something can be a material object, energy, or a consideration. When that something is a material object, the location is very precise; but when it is energy, the location is diffused; and when it is a consideration, the location is really spread out over a large area.

In Change of Space you dramatize the communication formula with the preclear exteriorized. (You have him be at one point then be at another point, then be at the first point and be at the second point, etc.). That first point is the source point of something, usually, and so he — by being the cause and then being the effect and finding out there is a vast distance between them — becomes rather relaxed about the whole thing. But Spotting Spots and Remedying Havingness could then be said to be cousins to two families — to Change of Space and to Opening Procedure.

See “Change of Space processing” in Tech Dictionary. Its object is to handle fixations at different locations, so the person is in present time. The Change of Space is simply an exercise in the flow of awareness. When the person is considering himself to be at a location, it is really a “consideration” that is occupying that location. A person gets fixated by getting into agreements on opinions about things.

The reason why we relate it to Opening Procedure is that that is the way you are going to produce the most effect with it. As though it were Opening Procedure.

The first contest is to get the preclear to find the spot in space. That is the first contest. The preclear will go around and he will find large spots, two or three feet in diameter. He’ll go around and find only spots which come out so far from the walls. He can’t find a spot independent of the room itself. His spots have energy in them, they have masses, they have color, they have size. In other words, he runs into a lot of trouble. If he does locate a spot it’s likely to be “suspended four or five feet above the floor on something that looks like a microphone stand”.

The various manifestations which occur are quite fascinating, but all of them are completely useless. You want to get the preclear over these as fast as possible.

At first, he finds material spots, which are collection of geometrical coordinate points related to the room. These spots are of physical variety. This process is looking for spots occupied by considerations.

You get him over them simply by having him spot some more spots in space. That’s all. Space where? In the space of the room. And you have him locate these spots in such a wise that he can go over and put his finger on them. Now, when you have him capable of spotting two or three spots, you’ve usually shot his havingness to ribbons. So, you have to remedy havingness right away. If he starts to get queasy, sick, upset in any way remedy his havingness.

There’s nothing more destructive to havingness than spotting some spots in space.

The person may finally find spots that are pure considerations (independent of the room). When he manages to do that it destroys his havingness in the sense that he has no idea of the consideration located there.

This is a precision action — you want him to spot a spot in space and then be able to spot it again. That spot is only a location. It doesn’t have mass, and you want him to be able to put his finger on it and take his finger off of it, and put the finger of his other hand on it, and take it off, and move his body into it and move his body out of it and so forth. This is a location, and the more certain he becomes of these locations the better he is, and the next thing you know — why, he’s able to tolerate space. And you accomplish this by remedying havingness all the way along.

There is space filled with matter. The space empty of matter is not really empty because it is generally filled with energy, such as light. Space empty of matter and energy is not really empty either because it is filled with considerations. There seems to be a matrix of considerations occupying the space of this universe. This matrix and the considerations are real. Once a person recognizes this and has an idea of the consideration at that location, he can tolerate space. But this requires remedying his havingness all the way along.

Now let’s suppose you had an individual who had an enormous struggle in spotting some spots in space, and the first spots he spotted were fairly large, and you just kept on nagging him until he finally got actually a location in space — and he started to get sort of upset. Remedy of Havingness had not been done yet, and he feels rather queasy about the whole thing. Then you say, “All right, mockup something that’s acceptable to you and pull it in,” and he says, “What mockup?” And you say, “Well, just put something out there — a dead body.” “What dead body?” “What are you looking at?” “Nothing.” “What are you actually looking at?”

He is feeling queasy because he is not aware of the consideration filling that spot. To restore his havingness we have him mockup considerations filling that space that are acceptable to him and pull them in. This stabilizes the space of considerations for him.

An interesting contest will come in at this point — getting him to tell you what he is looking at. What he’s looking at in this case is usually blackness, and he won’t tell you he’s looking at blackness. This is “nothing” as far as he is concerned, but he’s looking at blackness, and to get him to finally tell you what he actually is looking at is part of your first contest. “What are you looking at?” Well, it doesn’t do you very much good with an individual who can’t get any facsimiles, mockups, anything of the sort whatsoever, to mock something up and pull it in, because he’s going to have too hard a time.

But supposing he can get a vague or indistinct image out there. Is that good enough? Yessir, that’s good enough. Have him mockup several of those and pull them in on the body, and then go on spotting spots in space.

Blackness exists when a person cannot spot the consideration existing at that location. But whatever vague ideas he has, have him mockup them up and pull them in on the body several times until they become clear, and then go on spotting spots in space.

But supposing he couldn’t get any. None.

Then enters upon the scene this interesting single straightwire question. The agreement between the MEST Universe and the preclear gets down to a point where the preclear has agreed entirely that two things cannot occupy the same space, and after that he is not able to pull anything in, which is the biggest trap you have, because the way a preclear makes something disappear, makes it vanish utterly is to pull it all the way in, and if he can’t pull anything all the way in it continues to persist.

It seems that pulling a mockup in all the way makes it clear what it is. But he cannot do it if he believes that two things cannot occupy the same space.

How would someone fix up a being so that he’s packed in energy masses? By getting him to agree that two things could not occupy the same space, and after that he couldn’t destroy any energy mass that was around him. Quite Machiavellian.

A person is full of unresolved considerations when he believes that two things could not occupy the same space.

Well, Count Alfred Korzybski devoted a book to this called, “Science and Sanity”, and there are others who have written on this subject, but they go back to Korzybski, and: “It is utterly impossible for two things to occupy the same space.” And if that book has any message, it says, differentiate amongst your words and statements and thoughts, and, two things can’t occupy the same space. You nearly summate General Semantics when you say those two things. Now, there is a lot to this, you understand. He examined the mechanics of this, but he examined them in complete agreement with the physical universe.

The words simply express the thoughts. The words and their combinations have to be understood in the appropriate context. The words and their understanding are occupying the same space.

With somebody who has studied General Semantics, you’ve got a picnic on your hands in doing a Remedy of Havingness. You wouldn’t have realized it or recognized it but you have. He can’t pull anything in. He can’t remedy havingness and therefore can’t destroy energy. Why can’t he? Well, two things can’t occupy the same space, so if he wanted to mockup a car out there to pull it in and remedy his own mass, he of course couldn’t do it because he is already occupying the spot where the car would come into, therefore he couldn’t remedy his havingness. The mockup disappears just before it gets to him, and the underlying agreement back of that is two things cannot occupy the same space. This is of course an utter falsity.

The belief that two things can’t occupy the same space interferes with a person pulling in the mockup all the way into himself, which means looking at it closely and understanding it intuitively.

It happens to be a condition which when imposed resulted in this physical universe. That law is what keeps the parts and parcels and spaces and planets of this universe apart. It is an enforced differentiation in this universe which makes space for this universe. That is the law which keeps the space stretched in this universe. So of course, Korzybski would get all involved with differentiation. Differentiation on the basis of the MEST universe holding itself apart. Well, that isn’t differentiation. So, as a result you’ll have trouble at this point with anybody who has been in General Semantics. Here is this mockup disappearing just before it gets to him — in other words he isn’t remedying havingness. Now, how do you know he isn’t remedying havingness? Because he stays upset, of course. That’s all.

As long as two things have to maintain different identities, they cannot occupy the same space completely. This is enforced differentiation. That is why man cannot merge with God in Christianity. The considerations are set up that way.

He’s spotted some spots in space, and “these aren’t anything you can feel”. It just made him feel kind of frantic, and made him feel kind of upset, and made him feel sick at his stomach — these are common manifestations — and then you said, “Mock up an acceptable …”, and he says, All right. And you say, “Well, have you got a dead body there, or what have you got mocked up there?” and he says, “Well, I don’t know — I’ve got a wrecked car,” and you say, “Well, okay. Pull that wrecked car into your body. Now pull another one into your body, and pull another one into your body, and pull another one into your body”. And you say, “How do you feel?” “I feel… just as frantic as I did,” and so on. He isn’t pulling anything into his body. It’s disappearing before it gets to him, it’s dissipating and other things are occurring there, so that his havingness isn’t being remedied.

He cannot see the consideration naturally associated with that spot. If he imagines something else and pulls it in, there is no havingness in that.

By the way there’s a total process on this. You just simply have the fellow mock up things and pull them into his body, and the more massive the better, until you get planets and stars and black suns and all kinds of things being pulled into his body, and you’ll start something called an avalanche after a while, and the planets start coming in with a roar, and it’s quite an interesting phenomenon. I’ve seen one run for three or four days. They blow up every facsimile that gets in their road, they’ll blow up the entire energy behavior pattern of the preclear if you keep on remedying havingness.

But if remedying havingness doesn’t straighten him out it’s because he has agreed to this single agreement which doesn’t happen to be true, that two things cannot occupy the same space. He’s agreed to that so thoroughly that he can’t remedy his havingness.

The reason I’m stressing this is so that you will remember why you ask the preclear this question (and that this is the question, and that there isn’t any other question) and that question is simply this — “What wouldn’t you mind having occupy the same space as you’re occupying?”

By itself it is possible to mock things up and pull them into the body. But if he can’t do it, it is because he thinks that two things cannot occupy the same space. So, you ask him, “What wouldn’t you mind having occupy the same space as you are occupying?”

Well, he’s got to change his mind immediately, and two things can occupy the same space, in order to fulfill this condition, and without your explaining to him how, he had to change his mind.

Sometimes it takes them five minutes, sometimes it takes them five hours, but the roughest case I know of at this time had to be given this for two hours before he could finally accept something in his own space. That is to say, until he could find something that he wasn’t unwilling to have occupy the same space as himself. And this question was asked this case over and over and over and over. This case had never been able to remedy havingness, never been able to get mockups, never been able to do this, never been able to do that. Well, he remedied his havingness, and he got into fine fettle and doing very well indeed. This changed his case. If you’re doing a lot of Change of Space, you remedy havingness on the thetan. Have him put up eight anchor points and have him pull them in on himself, and eight more and pull them in on himself, eight more and pull them in on himself. When his body gets upset and restive, we simply do this. If he really pulls them all the way in, they will disappear. That is how you make things disappear. All space is an illusion, therefore if you pull in all anchor points of course there’s no space, so what happened to the anchor points? Well, they didn’t exist in the first place, so if you make them occupy the same space as you, they’ll vanish, and actually recognition simply depends on occupying the same space with. That’s why Beingness Processing works.

He has to change his mind to answer this question. He just has to be willing to find something that could occupy the same space as himself. This may take some time, but when he does that his case improves.

Anchor points are points which mark an area of space. If you pull all anchor points in, they disappear, and they have no space of their own. This is recognition, which simply depends on occupying the same space with.

On this factor of recognition and knowingness in terms of beingness and facsimiles, etc., we simply get this: is he willing to occupy the same space as it? And if he is, it will blow, and if he isn’t it won’t. So, if we get a case who can’t remedy his havingness being therefore unable to destroy a concept, a lock, a secondary, and an engram. If he can’t remedy havingness, he can’t occupy the same space with. If he can’t occupy the same space with, he naturally conceives that it’s making space, so therefore it has validity. And it won’t pull all the way in.

Whatever he is willing to occupy the same space with, will blow. It will become a part of him. Whatever he thinks has its own independent space, he won’t be able to pull all the way in.

This process is very elementary, but it could be hashed up most gloriously by over-running the preclear on spotting spots in space until he was good and groggy, upset and quite ill, and then expecting him to work in some fashion or another. Well, you would have driven him down tone scale to the point where he can hardly hold onto anything long enough to do anything about it. So, you’re now going to remedy his havingness and do the rest of this? No, you do this early. Remedy his havingness long before he needs to have it remedied. You don’t wait for signs. You could make them appear if you wanted to, but you just do this as a routine process. Whenever you spot a spot in space you remedy havingness, that’s all.

When he is spotting a spot in space, he is looking at some fixed consideration, which he needs to mockup and pull it in, until he blows it. These two actions need to be done together.

The process we’re interested in is this one: Spotting Spots in Space. We’re not really interested in remedying havingness because this is only dramatizing his dependency on it, so we’re just giving priority to the important thing here, and the priority is the spot in space, that’s what’s important. The remedy of havingness is incidental.

Maybe the consideration develops as he is spotting spots in space. So, havingness is run once the consideration has developed enough that he has to blow it.

Why does his havingness chew up? There must be something awfully wrong with the way this fellow’s handling energy for his havingness to chew up simply by trying to remedy it. All right, what do we do here specifically? We ask him what could occupy the same space as he’s occupying. If we had any doubt about this, and here’s where we get the answer to your question about that, if we had any doubt about this, we would take up this problem before we fooled around with any spots in space. We would look at this fellow and there he is gaunt and emaciated or bloated, or anything strange with his physiology — and we would say “Oh, this guy has a little bit of trouble with havingness.” You know, he’s a banker or something. We could tell professionally. He’s a commissar, a banker or a general? There’s something wrong with this guy’s havingness, otherwise he wouldn’t be where he is, that’s obvious, if he has to have in some other fashion than simply having.

If a person is dissatisfied with his beingness, there is something wrong with his havingness. He has misaligned considerations that need to be remedied.

Using a system like “becoming a general”. That’s a method of having, you see. You go to West Point, and don’t talk back, and graduate, and don’t talk back, and get into a War Department post, and don’t talk back, and coast along, and don’t talk back, and then you have to, of course, get more and more suppressed about how famous you’ve got to be and the next thing you know, why, you will start to accumulate troops to remedy your havingness… and you’ve got a U.S. General. You don’t do anything with the troops, just accumulate them. That’s not just being snide about generals. You can look at somebody and tell whether or not he’s having a lot of trouble with havingness. If he’s having trouble with havingness, then it might be very wise for you to just sail in on that basis. Let’s fix it up quick before we render him liable to anything. That would be a good idea.

A certain identity may be aspired. That identity itself may become havingness, and the havingness for that beingness may not be there.

But what’s important about this process is Spotting Spots in Space. What do we do with all these spots in space? We just spot them, that’s what. Well, I know, but what do you do with them after you spot them? Well, you spot them. Well, after you’ve spotted them then what do you do with all these spots in space? Well, you spot some more of ‘em. That’s what you do.

The process of spotting spots makes one aware of fixed considerations that needs to be assimilated. You just have to keep on doing this.  

Don’t look for any deeper significance in the technique than that except this: the preclear is sitting on three kingpin significances, (1) that he’s there but he’s gotta leave, (2) that he’s there and fixed there forever — being fixed against his will, and (3) that “it was there in that spot but now it is gone”. Three considerations there that are very aberrative on the track. Well, you could run these with this process. You spot a spot in the room and have him move the spot into his body. Have him stand there. You tell him: “Now get the idea that you can’t remain there. All right. Find another spot. Okay. Now move out of the spot you’re in and move this next spot into your body. You got that? All right. Now get the idea that you can’t stay there.”

You just do this in sequence. He’s in the spot, “Now get the idea that…” and you are making him dramatize the basic formula of self-determinism, the location of objects in space. And if you make him locate objects in space one after the other he’ll make considerable gains. Put this consideration onto it, that he can’t stay there, and have him move to the next spot. You just spot the spot and have him move to it, and you can run the consideration that he can’t stay there.

And we have him move onto a spot and then get the idea that he’s fixed there and can’t move, then we have him change his mind, not just break or disobey his postulate, we have him change his mind, and pick out a new spot, and move into it, and get the idea he’s got to stay there forever, and then have him change his mind about staying there forever and get a new spot and move it into his body and get the idea he’s going to stay there forever. You’d be surprised at the agony and weariness and tiredness that this one runs.

The next level is to have him spot the spot and get the idea that something very precious has just left there that he will never see again. You have him do this: just walk around and spot these spots and get the idea each one has just been vacated. There is the manifestation of the fellow trying to fill in the spots with energy — the mechanism that he’s undergoing, and it has a tendency to blow this.

So, there are three conditions — there are probably others, but those are certainly important conditions. Why? Well, what is the manifestation of facsimile? The manifestation of facsimile is not being able to remain in a spot, having to get out, and cussedly taking along a picture of it so that one can say he’s still there. That’s the rationale behind the facsimile. The facsimile is the solution to the problem.

A person is generally unwilling to be there, but he believes he is fixed there, and he is missing something that should have been there. He uses a facsimile as a “solution” to these considerations. You don’t need facsimiles if you can run out these considerations by spotting spots.

So then, what is this thing called unreality? Unreality is that activity the preclear has engaged upon whenever he was forced to stay in a place where he did not want to be. His answer to this was to make it all unreal, so that he wouldn’t really know he was there. He’s trying to be self-determined anyhow, and the way he’s being self-determined is to make it all unreal. He could say, “Although I am forced to stay here in prison, stone walls do not a birdcage make.” That’s why they put psychotics in cells. (Well, that didn’t quite add up to a solution. That’s just a reason as reasonable as anything else in that field, which has to do with nuttiness, so don’t expect it to be reasonable.)

All right, he’ll make things unreal then, if forced to stay in the same place. He’ll dim down his perceptions on things. That merely says that he’s unwilling to be there.

A person will make things unreal, if forced to stay in the same place.

Now what’s this thing called occlusion? Occlusion comes about as the consequences of loss. Something precious has disappeared from the person, and if he could still see, he’d notice it was gone, and this would be more than he could bear, so the best thing to do would be to cover it all up with blackness and that’d be that. That would be a good solution, wouldn’t it? Let’s just hide the whole thing. Let’s just hide the problem and then let’s just abandon the whole idea, and then, you see, we could still pretend that it’s still there.

This is the basis of “it’s too good to use”, also. People will get to the point where if you give them something extremely valuable, they will not wear it or use it. They promptly hide it. Well, that’s because they know, if they know anything, that they lose things like that. I remember giving a very dear lady, my grandmother, a present one day because she was going around wearing a watch that was a shame — very disreputable — and I gave her a new watch, and she kept right on wearing this old disreputable watch. And later on, I was going around looking for something and opened up a drawer, and there hidden in the bottom of the drawer was this brand new, very nice, rather indestructible, by the way, good watch. And I asked her why she wasn’t wearing it and she said, “Oh, that’s much too nice to use.” And so I began to wonder about this a little and went back and just glanced through some of her things there, and do you know she had more things that were too nice to use! It was a tremendous abundance. She couldn’t use it, though, it was all too nice.

Well, people do this in another way. When they’ve lost something, they turn everything black. They just hide it and they hide the fact that they’ve lost it. Also, this is “no responsibility” and other factors. And occlusion adds up to too many considerations. Actually, the basic occlusion is mystery. Unpredictability. “It’s gone and I didn’t predict it would go, and so… it’s all black.” Well, here you’re making the preclear predict that something is going to disappear.

Occlusion comes about as the consequences of loss. He hides the loss with blackness and pretends that it is still there. This is the basis of “it’s too good to use”, also. The basic occlusion is mystery.

So, there are these methods of handling spots in space, and these are the main considerations. Now, don’t for a moment believe that there are eighty-five other considerations that can be added into that type of processing. The basic Pre-logic on which this is based is a very precise thing. It says: Theta locates things in time and space and creates time and space and things to locate in them. Self-determinism is one’s ability to locate things in time and space, and this is directly processing self-determinism, so it doesn’t go out in all directions. It’s right there and it’s on those three considerations: the consideration of loss, the consideration of “I got to stay here so I’ll make it all unreal,” and the consideration of “Well, I can’t have that place any more so I’ll carry a picture of it.” Most of your preclears whether they know it or not are walking around with a childhood home over their heads. They can’t have that spot any more — the orientation place — so they think, to see at all they’d better carry it around with them.

We are directly processing self-determinism here, which is, to process the ability to locate things in time and space. It handles the following considerations:
(1) the consideration of loss
(2) the consideration of “I got to stay here so I’ll make it all unreal,” and
(3) the consideration of “Well, I can’t have that place anymore, so I’ll carry a picture of it.”

Now Spotting Spots and Remedy of Havingness — between the two of them the more important is Spotting Spots — and the consequence of Spotting Spots is having to Remedy Havingness. But why does he have to remedy havingness? Because he can’t create energy.

He has to remedy havingness to give mass to what the spot may contain. This is creating energy.

There are obviously lots of methods one way or another which would get somebody out of creating energy. For example, after something had been discovered which the preclear was perfectly willing to have occupy the same space, the next thought was, “Well, let’s see now. If there’s that… that’s energy… I think I’ll… I’ll mockup a machine of some kind or another to remedy my havingness,” and mocked up a generator and then it went on to a power station and then on to suns. In other words, the preclear went right on and remedied all of his considerations that he was dependent on anything else of any kind whatsoever for energy, and he started producing it himself. So that is the product of remedy of havingness. In other words, he would be saying that that is a very procedure if you just change the considerations on it all the way on up. This is obviously a finite procedure. You don’t go on remedying havingness forever.

The idea of havingness process is to get the person to start generating energy, that is, to become able to spot considerations without any problem.

So — why don’t you remedy the condition that makes you remedy havingness? There is, then, an indicated process. This will turn on mockups and perception and everything else: “What wouldn’t you mind occupying the same space as you?”

This process remedies havingness for good: “What wouldn’t you mind occupying the same space as you?”

And so, we have the Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots in Space.



A spot is a location in space. We see space as something empty of matter, but it is not really empty because it is filled with energy, such as light. Space empty of both matter and energy is actually filled with considerations. There seems to be a matrix of considerations occupying the space of this universe. This matrix and the considerations are real.

A spot, to be a location, must be occupied by something. When that something is a material object, the location is very precise; but when it is energy, the location is diffused; and when it is a consideration, the location is spread out over a large area.

In this process a person is spotting spots in space that are independent of the physical room and have a location only because of a consideration. The location is fixed because the consideration at that location is fixed. A consideration gets fixed by getting into agreements on opinions about things.

The Spotting spots in Space process is to locate considerations fixed in space and to recognize them. Once a person recognizes this and has an idea of the consideration at that location, he can tolerate space. But a person may spot such a location but get into difficulty in recognizing the fixed consideration there. He may have some vague idea. So, he mocks up considerations that are acceptable to him in the sense that he wouldn’t mind them occupying the same space as him. He pulls those consideration in all the way. He does that again and again until he recognizes the actual fixed consideration occupying that spot. This latter action is called the remedying of havingness.


The Detached Viewpoint

Reference: KHTK Version of Scientology

The detached viewpoint does not interfere with the thoughts it is looking at. It does not avoid, resist, suppress or deny any thoughts. It lets the thoughts appear and disappear as they may. This is the secret to seeing things as they are, because a thought is altered the moment one interferes with it.

The following exercise is designed to get an experience of the detached viewpoint. It is easier to do so with relatively happy thoughts that are free of stress. Once you get familiar, hopefully you can practice the detached viewpoint with slightly more stressful thoughts.

Simply read an item from this list and wait for a response to come from the mind. Do not interfere with the mind. Do not make any conscious effort to recall. Let the mind carry out its functions in the most natural fashion.

You will know instantly if there is a reaction to that item in the mind. If there is a reaction, a response will follow in terms of a memory of that type. If there is no response on an item, simply move to the next item. You may go over this list more than once and find new responses. The idea is to learn to wait patiently for the response to come.

Go ahead and start on this process.  If a response comes, acknowledge that fact to yourself. It there is no response within reasonable time, move to the next item. You might find this process to be a lot of fun.

Stay relaxed and keep the effort to a minimum.


General Incidents

“Consider a moment when…”

1. You were happy.

2. You had just finished constructing something.

3. Life was cheerful.

4. Somebody had given you something.

5. You ate something good.

6. You had a friend.

7. You felt energetic.

8. Somebody was waiting for you.

9. You drove fast.

10. You saw something you liked.

11. You acquired something good.

12. You threw away something bad.

13. You kissed somebody you liked.

14. You laughed at a joke.

15. You received money.

16. You felt young.

17. You liked life.

18. You played a game.

19. You bested something dangerous.

20. You acquired an animal.

21. Somebody thought you were important.

22. You enjoyed a good loaf.

23. You chased something bad.

24. You were enthusiastic.

25. You enjoyed life.

26. You went fast.

27. You owned something.

28. You felt strong.

29. Somebody departed.

30. Somebody helped you.

31. You gathered something good.

32. You measured something.

33. You took a pleasant journey.

34. You turned on a light.

35. You heard some good music.

36. You controlled something.

37. You destroyed something.

38. You mastered something.

39. You were lucky.

40. You felt peaceful.

41. You saw a pretty scene.

42. You poured something good.

43. You acquired something that was scarce.

44. You made an enemy scream.

45. You had a pleasant seat.

46. You handled something well. (actual physical handling)

47. You moved something.

48. You watched something fast.

49. You were together with friends.

50. You occupied a good space.

51. Somebody loved you.

 52. You enjoyed somebody.

53. You invented something.

54. You harnessed some energy.

55. You killed a bug.

56. You pocketed something.

57. You made progress.

58. You walked.

59. You saved something.

60. You stopped a machine.

61. You started a machine.

62. You had a good sleep.

63.​You stopped a thief.

64. You stood under something.

65. You started a fire.

66. You went upstairs.

67. You were warm.

68. You went riding.

69. You were adroit.

70. You swam.

71. You stood your ground.

72. You lived well.

73. You were respected.

74. You won a race.

75. You ate well.


Unwanted Conditions

Reference: KHTK Version of Scientology

At the bottom of a persisting unwanted condition is some experience that was overwhelming, and one had to deny that it was happening. That experience is now buried deep.

Mental perceptions are relatively fluid, and it is not so easy for a person, who is preoccupied with the daily stress of living, to perceive deeply buried experiences objectively.

Mediating alternately over the following two questions might help.

“What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?”

“What part of the future would you be willing to experience?”

Meditate over the first question. Experience whatever phenomenon is coming through. Do not dig into the mind; simply wait for the details to come through. Sometimes it may go on for some time. Do not resist or suppress anything. When nothing more is coming up, switch to the other question. Continue back and forth between these two questions as long as things are coming up.

If something difficult comes up that you tend to stick in, simply do the following:

Spot when that phenomena first occurred in your experience. Experience whatever phenomenon is coming through. Meditate as above. Just make sure you have spotted the time of the first occurrence of that phenomenon correctly. When nothing more is coming up, move back to the question.