ACT - 23
                            10 October 1993
                 Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
     It has been the common experience of auditors to find some really
great process to run on themselves or their pcs only to find that after
a few hours the process grinds to a halt and the pc is left feeling just
as bad as before.
     Take for example the process,
     'Tell me about coming in.'
     'Do you have a missed withhold on coming in?'
     Now it sounds logical, doesn't it, the pc had to come into any
situation prior to being stuck in it, and so in trying to get him
earlier on the chain of that subject you of course would try to get him
to contact his responsibility for getting into it in the first place.
     So I was running this the other day, with great gain, I was nailing
the withhold over and over again releasing lots and lots of pain out of
my spine, and behind my heart, and the back of my throat, and behind my
eyes, and I finally left off on a rather large release that I hoped
would continue for a while.
     An hour later I was totally caved in again, in serious pain with
somatics all over my body and in my throat.  Finally I decided I had
better go back into session and deal with it, saying to myself 'I don't
want to be here, I REALLY don't want to be here, Jesus H.  Christ why do
I have to go through all this damn auditing nonsense, why can't I just
die in peace and be done with it.'
     So I went into session grumbling to myself, 'I don't want to be
here, I don't want to be here' kind of dragging myself into my case once
again in a long line of once agains, hoping that maybe this time I would
nail it for good.
     Well I started running 'I don't want to be here'.  And boy was that
true.  It finally became,
     'Tell me about not wanting to be here.'
     'Do you have a withhold on not wanting to be here?'
     'Do you have a MISSED withhold on not wanting to be here?'
     I ran this for a while to good effect, then it started to bog down
again.  So I started to play with it running every variation I could
think of including
     'Do you have a withhold on WANTING to be here?'
     'Do you have a withhold on being here?'
     'Do you have a withhold on coming in?'
     'Do you have a withhold on being?'
     Finally I nailed it but good on the first one, WANTING TO BE HERE.
     'Is there a missed withhold on WANTING TO BE HERE?'
     So I took a break and started to think about all this, and this is
what came out of it.
     Ron taught us that engrams need to be run in chains back to the
basic incident.  He didn't really tell us WHY this was so, but to the
degree it seemed to work, we all did what we were told.
     One of the problems with early Dianetics was determining what a
chain was.  Was it all the incidents where you felt the same way, or all
the incidents where the same thing happened to you, or all the incidents
where the same person was the antagonist, or all the incidents where you
were thinking of something?
     Eventually Ron limited it down to attitudes, emotions, sensations
and pains and one found the earlier incident merely by ASKING for an
earlier similar incident of whatever attitude, emotion, sensation or
pain you were running, and taking what ever the pc gave you.
     Then later Ron published New Era Dianetics wherein the major
advance was the fact that you had to run each engram until you uncovered
the POSTULATE made during the moment of greatest duress.
     Later I realized that these postulates are in fact the central core
of the chain you are trying to run, and the reason that you don't just
go for earlier similar incidents based on NARRATIVE CONTENT is because
they may be very similar in what occurred to the pc, but very different
in what postulates were made.
     Narrative content refers to what actually happened in the incident,
like the chain of all times the guy fell in a lake over many lives, or
the chain of all times he was shot for being in the wrong woman's bed.
     Narrative chains might NOT have a common thread of attitudes,
emotions, sensations and pains, and more importantly they might not have
a common thread of postulates made during the incident.
     So there you are running some chain and the guy gives you a time he
had his head cut off, and an earlier time he was hung, and an earlier
time he was in Church with his mother, and an earlier...  Whoa, church?
What the hell does that have in common with the first two?
     Maybe he died of boredom?
     So you ask him, what's the common postulate to these incidents, and
he thinks about it for a moment and says,
     There you have it, that's the central postulate to the chain you
are running, and away you go down to the beginning of time trying to
find the basic INCIDENT on the chain, or the first time he postulated 'I
don't want to be here!'
     You run this to a tremendous win, and your pc walks out glowing and
swearing to tell everyone how great an auditor you are.
     But then the next day your pc comes in looking all glum again, and
you just can't figure out how things could get so bad after having been
so good.
     In old time dianetics we were taught that if an incident refuses to
run or begins to go more solid, that means either there is an earlier
beginning to this same incident, or it is not basic on the chain and you
have to look for an earlier incident.
     So you say to your pc 'Well say now, I see that you aren't looking
so good', and your pc says 'Yeah, good point'.  And you say 'Well that
chain we were running yesterday on 'I don't want to be here', did that
go more solid?' And the pc looks around himself and says 'Bleh, yuk...'
     So you take the hint and say 'Ok, the chain has gone more solid, so
we are going to continue to run this chain to completion.  Now then is
there an earlier similar incident of 'I don't want to be here?'
     But the pc looks and looks and just can't seem to find anything,
and he gets more solid, and more pain, and more green, and more dark,
and his eyes have no light in them anymore, and you know you had better
do something quick or else you are going to lose him.
     So you say to your pc, 'Ok, apparently we ARE at the basic on the
chain of 'I don't want to be here'.  Is there an earlier similar
     The pc immediately brightens up and thinks 'My what a wonderfully
astute auditor I have, how lucky I am to have him' but starts to think
about it and says 'Well a postulate is a postulate.  What do you mean by
an earlier SIMILAR postulate.  Either it's the same postulate or it
     And you think about this and you say 'Ok then, is there an earlier
POSTULATE whether similar or not?'
     THEN the pc says 'Well yes of course, that COMING IN chain we ran
the other day is earlier to not wanting to be here.  But we ran that to
completion too, so I don't think it could be that.'
     So you say, 'fine then, is there yet an earlier postulate?'
     And the pc says 'You mean earlier to COMING IN?  Hmmm yes, let's
see...' And the pc frowns and thinks and scrunches up his eye brows and
dramatizes mightily, and finally he looks up and says sheepishly, 'Well
yes, maybe there is...
     So you take up the postulate 'I want to be here' and off you go.
     Clearly before the guy chose to come into a game, a 'here' of
magnitude, he first had to WANT to come in, to be 'here'.
     Just as clearly only AFTER he came in did he finally develop the
postulate I DON'T WANT TO BE HERE.
     So I WANT TO BE HERE is an earlier postulate to COMING IN which is
an earlier postulate to I DON'T WANT TO BE HERE.
     So it's pretty clear that what we are running here is a chain of
POSTULATES where each postulate has an entire chain of INCIDENTS unto
itself.  This chain of postulates we call the chain of chains.
     Each postulate on the chain of postulates is a DIFFERENT postulate,
but each one proceeds logically from the one before it.
     The basic incident on each chain of INCIDENTS must be reached
before that chain will erase, but unless that chain's postulate is the
most basic postulate on the chain of postulates, the whole bank will not
     So this is how various postulates might be laid out in the time
     1.)  NOT BEING (Native State, free unmanifested potential)
     2.)  BEING
     3.)  WANTING TO BE (approval and willingness to view more)
     4.)  WANTING TO BE HERE (here = a new there he wants to enter)
     5.)  WANTING TO GO IN
     6.)  COMING IN
     7.)  BEING HERE
     8.)  WANTING TO BE HERE  (once in)
     9.)  GLAD I CAME IN
    10.)  WANTING TO NOT WANT TO BE HERE  (pivotal game point)
    12.)  SORRY I CAME IN
    14.)  TRYING TO GO OUT
    15.)  CAN'T GO OUT
    16.)  I DIDN'T COME IN
    17.)  NOT WANTING TO BE (at all)
    18.)  NOT BEING (Not-isness and Spiritual Death)
     The being starts off in NOT BEING or Native State.  Then he wakes
up into BEING and considers that this is good, which is WANTING TO BE.
     Then he decides he would like to partake in a game, a space-time
system of heres and nows, and this is WANTING TO BE HERE, where 'here'
is a new 'there' to go into.
     This leads him to WANTING TO GO IN, which leads to COMING IN, which
     But then things go wrong, HE MAKES IT DO SO and this comes from
WANTING TO NOT WANT TO BE HERE.  He skillfully crafts his own demise to
make sure he stays around, otherwise he might wake up out of the game
too easily.
     This leads to NOT WANTING TO BE HERE, which leads to WANTING TO GO
OUT, which leads to TRYING TO GET OUT, which of course fails because he
has blinded himself to, and so lost sight of, his decision to come in.
     This leads him to NOT WANT TO BE at all since he can't get out, and
eventually to NOT BEING, as a solid piece of mest that is slumbering his
Eternity away as a rock on the shore.
     Each one of these prime postulates has a first time it was made in
the present cycle of creation.  Past cycles are as-ised and no longer
     A Cycle of Creation consists of moving out of Native State, moving
into creating things, then causing them to survive, then undoing them
all and going back to Native State, in preparation for another cycle of
creation should you so choose.
     Each one of these prime postulates also has endless numbers of
further times when the same postulate was made and affirmed during the
course of travel in the time stream.  Those are incidents on the chain
of that particular postulate.
     Thus each postulate forms a chain of incidents when that postulate
was made or affirmed.  When you run standard Dianetics you are running
these chains back to the basic incident of making and affirming that
particular ONE postulate.
     But each postulate has an EARLIER DIFFERENT postulate which also
has its own chain.  The basic incident on the chain of the earlier
postulate is earlier than the basic incident on the chain of the later
postulate; but all the future incidents on the chain of the earlier
postulate are intermixed in the time stream with the future incidents of
the chain of the later postulate.  This is because even after the second
postulate is formed, the first postulate is still operating and
continues to form its own incidents along with the second postulate.
     It's like shuffling two card decks of different colors together.
Each card in the shuffled deck is an incident belonging to the chain of
incidents of the same color.  The EARLIEST chain of incidents is the
chain whose BASIC incident is the first in the deck.
     It isn't true that the whole chain and ALL OF ITS INCIDENTS is
earlier than the other chain, only its first or earliest incidents are,
thus we call that chain the EARLIER chain.  Only its BASIC incidents and
maybe a few of its earliest incidents are actually earlier than all of
the second chain.
     Each incident on a given chain has the same core or reigning
postulate as every other incident on the SAME color chain.  But
different colored chains have different reigning postulates.
     We call such postulates, CORE, REIGNING, OPERATING, PRIMARY CENTRAL
or GOVERNING postulates of the chain.  The terms are interchangeable.
     Thus by looking at later incidents it is sometimes hard to tell
which chain of incidents is more basic until you find the basic incident
on each chain and determine which basic incident happened first.
     Further each of these chains is related to each other, because the
reigning postulate of each chain is derived from and is a natural
consequence of the reigning postulate of the chain just before it.
     Thus when you are running a chain, and you have these big wins, and
then suddenly your pc is doing real bad again, almost as if no auditing
had taken place, you can be sure that the postulate on the chain you ran
was NOT the basic postulate on the chain of chains that makes up the
central core of your pc's case.
     You DON'T ask for an earlier similar incident on the same chain,
     COMING IN is rather late on the chain of chains actually.
     Long before you came into anything you had to BE and WANT TO BE.
So you are really getting back to the source of Sovereign Desire with
this stuff, and if you miss the basic basic postulate, or even just the
next earlier postulate, you can expect your case to go down in flames.
     It gets WORSE the closer you come to the basic postulate, if you
them proceed to miss it, so the closer you are to getting it right the
better you had better be as an auditor and be able to spot these things
and carry your pc on through.
     Remember that as you audit your pc on COMING IN and GETTING OUT, he
will dramatize these items on session itself!
     So if he wants out, you can be sure you are late on the chain, and
when you start to get it right, he will be more than happy to come in
and get auditing.
     And THAT is the sum totality of an ARC broken field.
     The guy doesn't want more auditing because no one would LET him go
earlier than WANTING TO GET OUT!
     He wants to get out of his problems, his upsets, his unhappiness,
his oppositions, his body, his bank, his universe, his whatever.  What
ever it is he hands you, he doesn't want to have anything to do with it!
     You are trying to run it out so he doesn't have to have it any more.

     NO.  You are trying to run it out so he CAN have it again if
he wants, and is happy he had it in the first place, all the
ludicrous demise that it was.

     You see he CAME IN to Scientology WANTING TO GET OUT, so its
natural to audit him on GETTING OUT for a while, but if you do it too
long, without getting him earlier similar to COMING IN, he will
dramatize his item on session and GET OUT.
     Bang, no more Church.