((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
                     MASTER POWER PROCESS - TAPE 1
                                 JM - 2
                                ca. 1986
                    Copyright (C) 1986 John McMaster
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
     ((I do not have the original tape, and this transcript was not done
by me, so I was limited in my ability to edit it clearly.))
     Well as I was saying yesterday, about the history of the Power
Processes and how they came about in design.  I'll just quickly sum up
the first of the Power Processes which subsequently became the final.
It was these commands.  "Tell me an existing condition." Which obviously
is in present time.  And the second question is: "How have you handled
it?" is in past time.
     Now there is a very good rational behind the structure of the
process and that is because it is based on the fact that if you look at
people's behavior, you will see that most people are acting through
something.  And for the most part it appeared that a person is stuck in
traumatic or severe, like the most severe or most traumatic incident the
Being who is animating this particular body has ever experienced,
because it was such an overwhelm and the Being has never been able to
sort it out.  And constantly his behavior pattern in this lifetime is
still responding, defending and resisting the reoccurrence of such an
     And so the behavior of most people is monitored by this basic
incident, which could have happened any time that the Being has
experienced and has never been able to encompass because it was too
much.  In fact, the person has gone into the valence that the person
considers required to defend itself from ever experiencing such an
incident again.  So that incident is very deep in the, using
psychological terms, the subconscious layers of the Being's awareness,
call it mind or call it what you like.  But that is there and dominating
the behavior pattern of its current life.  So it is still an existing
condition, no matter when it took place, for that Being it is still an
existing condition.
     So, but in order to bring it into consciousness, one has to put the
second question into the past tense to get the Being cycling on the
track.  So you say, "Tell me an existing condition."  Then the person
will say something that they are conscious of, or of which they are
conscious.  And then you say, "Tell me how you have handled this", or
"Tell me how you handled it" or "How have you handled it?" and then the
person is immediately, by the command, put into the past, even though
the person is giving a present time answer in the first place.  So the
command is compelling the person into the past.  So you get the
beginning of the cycling on the time track, which you know, sort of goes
back and forward and back and forward and it varies.  It doesn't keep on
going further, further, further back on the time track.  You know, like
each time you give the past tense second question, it doesn't take the
person necessarily further into the past, because there are so many
related incidents on the track, you know, in a person's existence.
     Like Hubbard preferred to say, 'similar'.  I say 'related' because
sometimes the incident is not similar at all.  So now you say, "Tell me
an existing condition," and the person says, "so and so and so and so
and so..." and you say, "Thank you.  Tell me how you've handled it" or
"How have you handled it?"  It's got to be in the past, whichever way
you phrase the second command.  It's got to be something that is
compelling the concentration, not forcefully.  Rather than compel I'll
use the word directing the attention into the past.  So you get present-
past-present-past and the cycling on the track is now taking place.
     Now, it is vital that these processes are run muzzled.  And that
the person answers completely, is given a very gentle acknowledgement,
and then the next command is given.  And again a complete answer but
not, and no "What did you say?" or, if you didn't hear it, you can see
when it is completed.  And then you acknowledge quietly, and give the
next command.  Now I found when I originated these things that - now
this was only while I was doing it - that if I could do it softly,
gently, the velocity was important to keep the person's attention
functioning, on that particular Being, that comes into existence of the
present and the cycling on the track you see, to try to keep them
bouncing off on tangents and so on.  And so it became:  Command per unit
of time, gently, as effortlessly as you can give to the person so that
there is no interruption.
     Now I did say yesterday, but I will repeat it, that I, you know
even if I, I was there, and now this again takes you into this idea of
TR0 being staring straight at the person.  It's nothing of the sort.
TR0 is the concept of being there and being able to receive, whether
you've got your back to the person or not.  And the less you do, to take
the person's, the person's, to draw attention to yourself.  And that's
why I say the command should be gently, effortlessly but, you know with
a tremendous velocity given.  Put no attention onto the auditor at all,
which is achieving perfect confronting or perfect so-called TR0.
     Of course there is none, no attention whatsoever, on the auditor.
The auditor is just doing this, but the preclear's attention is totally
on the function of answering the first question and looking at how he
handled it.  Answering the first question and looking at how he handled
it.  And the cycling gets effortless and there staying on that thing
until the confront over there of the person responding, receiving the
auditing, is completely uninterrupted by anything in the environment,
including the auditor.  And that's why the answers must never be
premature.  It was in running these processes that I discovered first
from other people's auditing, though this is not saying how good I was,
because I heard people auditing in the things next to me, later on when
so many people came we had to retain other auditors, I could here these
abrupt "Thank you's!" which immediately knocked the person off the beam.
     Peter:  Because it threw their attention back to the auditors.
     John:  Of Course, and also they had now started a new cycle.  Once
you're running it, you see, it's all one cycle.  Now you give an
acknowledgement like that.  It's an acknowledgement that shatters them
back to present time.  When you want them to cycle on the track, you
don't want them remaining in present time.  Because eventually that
condition in which they are stuck, which is still a present time
existing condition because it is dominating their behavior, although it
is not happening now and it didn't happen yesterday, and it might have
happened thousands of years ago - it is still an existing condition,
because maybe it has dominated lifetimes of their behavior patterns.
     Peter: You said something yesterday, discovering about TRs being
wrong.  Because in TR2, which is acknowledgements, you were taught to
end the cycle of action.
     John: That's right, Yes.  Now do you see how really the optimum,
I'm not going to use the word perfect, but the optimum running of this
process, and any process really, is to get a perfect concept of, #1, the
confrontation without intruding, when felt, when one is the functioner,
if you like, and the other one is the functionee.  And yet he's doing
the functioning, so I'm just enlarging on the point you just made in
relation to the way people are so-called trained to audit.  That's why I
say training throughout encourages the willingness to learn what it's
all about and then you don't need to train anybody because as I say if I
want to help you obviously I've got to be as unobtrusive as possible and
yet as effective as possible.  To be unobtrusive and yet as optimumly
effective as is required to get that function in operation.  Now this
process is the perfect test of a person's ability to have those so
called TRs which we are going to rename as exercises.  That they have
those and the ability to just deliver exactly to the point where you
wanted to go, no further, but no intrusion and yet maximum
effectiveness.  And in this process, boy it's a process, if you can do
that, you see, you wouldn't have needed, we wouldn't have needed the
other processes.  Now when I started off running these, I only had that
one, this one process about which I'm talking now.
     Peter: You're saying the other processes wouldn't have been needed
if it had been properly run by the auditors.
     John: If all these people had what we have been talking about on
the other tape in relation to the so-called TRs, then these other
processes wouldn't be necessary.  But you see, with premature
acknowledgements, with over-done acknowledgements, you have ending a
cycle, all that type of thing.  This process was constantly being messed
     Peter: You know John, I know you realize how funny this is.  You
don't normally say, when you get an auditor reporting to you that
something doesn't work...  You find out what the auditor did wrong, and
you don't alter what you're doing because the auditor says it doesn't
work.  Now it appears that this is exactly what happened in this case.
This process didn't work, because it wasn't Being audited properly, so
Ron promptly produced other processes, because it didn't work.
     John: Yes, because you see this is where he said, "John, you are
the only one that can do it."  I'm not..., This is the history, the fact
that I was involved is incidental.  I am giving you the history into why
it had to be eased into, because there's basics about which we are
talking on that tape of the ability to receive, the ability to listen,
the ability to deliver, unobtrusively and yet to maximum effectiveness.
Now these things, this is what was tragic.  These auditors who were
doing this had come off the Briefing Course at the maximum level, Level
6.  And they did not have in their grasp any idea of what those training
drills they were supposed to have done were intended to be there for.
     So anyway, the purpose of this process was eventually that incident
which had been dominating behavior.  You've peeled off all the things
that are blocking it from the awareness of the Being, because it was in
overwhelm at the time.  That's why the more gently you can do it and the
more effectively you can do it and without any intrusion whatsoever and
keep it - it increases the Being's confront, even though at the point
where that incident comes right up to present time the person relives,
revivifies the overwhelm of the incident that has been being dramatized
ever since the incident.  As they are coming up to it.  It's now been
brought by the cycling on the track, right, you know, the time collapse
is removed.  And all the lifetimes in between are removed by the way the
process has been going.  And so now that is the only incident that can,
is free to cut, that is there left, because you have run off the others.
     Then there are the ones that are pretending to obscure it.  Until
you've peeled all of those off.  And that's why I say the repetitive,
the commands per unit of time, the velocity, the effortlessness and the
complete lack of intrusion, and the muzzledness of the auditor.  No
outside comment, no, 'What was that?', 'What did you say?', 'I want to
write that down'.  None of this at all.  If you don't hear, bad luck!
     You can observe that the person is finished answering, because as
they come, if it's going to be a tremendous incident for the person to
confront, they do tend to go anaten and semi-unconscious and sometimes
completely unconscious, briefly and sometimes for a long time.  But the
more effortlessly you are doing it, the less the revivification takes,
the less time it takes.  Because you are putting no effort, and so the
Being's confront gets less and less effortful.  And so their effort
disappears.  It's all to do with what we were talking about, the two
sided thing.  (Somebody is just coming through the door.)  Sorry about
****.  However, so you can see how all these things we are trying to
express on the tape, how vital they are.  And had all these things been
the way we are talking about them, this process would have sufficed
     Joan: Can you share some more?
     John: So, now what was tending to happen with, but you see, it
nevertheless, the fact that these other mistakes were made presents the
need for the world at large to realize there are things as premature
acknowledgement, dropping an answer, because even sometimes a person's
not speaking but he hasn't finished his answer because he hasn't
finished looking.  And this is why the awareness of the person
delivering the commands whatever we're going to call such a person, must
be so great that he can see the person hasn't finished looking, even
though he isn't speaking.  And see that this is where I discovered that
these other chaps were not aware of the fact that, when the person
stopped speaking, he hadn't finished answering.  They weren't aware of
it.  You see and so to get them aware of it, we had to bring out the
bulletin on premature acknowledgements, and overdone acknowledgements.
You know that shocked the person out of that cycling action, which was
the vital thing to achieve, the point of the process.  So all of these
things that we are putting on the other tape are vital to the perfect
running of this process and that's when we found out they weren't there.
But how it still did not change the whole concept of those TRs.  It was
those basics that were arts that required, therefore now, an easier
gradient into this process, which finally did become the final Power
process, although it was the first one ever run.  But it was that
difficult for some people, but it was the person might not have had it
difficult at all, had the auditor had all the basics of, you know,
there's the TR0 let's call it that for now, although we are changing it,
because people won't know what we are talking about.  If they had had a
perfect TR0, not a blatant stare that, that in itself - You see, there
were times when - Some people are a thousand times more sensitive than
others because the Being will use anything to knock himself out of
session.  You know it is not (sic) because he's extra sensitive than all
the rest of them.  You just look at him and immediately he goes off the
beam.  You know and you just drop your pencil or your pen or any of
these types of things, and the person's off the beam, and so you've got
to re-start the cycle.  You see this is why those people were taking so
long.  It wasn't necessarily the dumb people receiving the process, it
was that the auditor didn't have all of things so effortlessly there,
because if you've got them there, it doesn't matter if you drop your
pencil.  Because obviously things like that can happen.
     So you get the person feeling, number 1, feeling so safe and
willing to let go and cycle and follow that line which is taking them to
the point where that incident just shifts right out of its part in time,
you've removed all the confusion of the time track.  You know the way
the time track can be jagged this way, that way, that way because of
related incidents and associated incidents and all sorts of things, and
that thing is being kept with the Being all the way along the line,
because he was in overwhelm, has never been able to be confronted.
     We are talking about confront, you know, in our tape that we were
making this morning.  So now you can see I'm glad we made that tape,
because it is enlarging what I am talking about here and you can see the
vital need, for what we must talk about to be understood.  So now,
because it means every one of those auditors would have to go and
retrain, in the meantime we had about 100 people waiting for these
processes.  For this process, it was the only one to start off with.
     Now I ran just that process on 3 people with fantastic success, but
I was the only one auditing.  It wasn't until we brought all, we had all
these people coming for it, so we had to take all these other, several
trained auditors, to come along and I had to quickly explain, explain
you see.  And then when we found out, you see, so we found out these
other things like, first of all premature acknowledgement, secondly the
acknowledgement that knocks a person out of session which is not quite
premature acknowledgement, but you know, overdone acknowledgement.  And
then later on even we found out that, you know, the person didn't
understand what you were talking about, the misunderstood word.  All of
that was a product of the evolution of these processes, which, because
they required perfection and an optimum awareness of these types of
things, in order to rarely produce the perfect result.  With these,
other deficiencies in the basics of what it's all about showed up.  So
it wasn't a bad thing.  But they showed up and they should have been
introduced there and then into that first thing of the understanding of
those, let's call them exercises, training drills, whatever, you know
the TRs they're called, but I would prefer to say exercises for the
willingness for the person to understand rather than the introduction of
the *forced.  So now let's let that process be, discussed yesterday.
     So as you're going, you gradually shift all the jaggedness of the
time track and that incident which is there and is being dramatized at
the present time is completely the one ready for the next answer as an
existing condition.  And up it pops.  And it's completely revivified
because, even though the person goes, not always, but invariably the
person has this brief moment of anaten which they went through at the
time because the incident was such an overwhelm.
     Now if you are doing it so effortlessly, the person sometimes does
not have the symptoms of anaten.  Because the confront has enlarged so
much that they just Ahhh.  And they can relate the incident verbatim -
sometimes they don't even know what's happened, but they come through
it.  And that is when you just quietly wait until everything is fine and
you get, using a meter, you get on the meter the perfect absolutely
nothing left, and sometimes you even get a floating Tone Arm, it is so
perfect.  And at that point you just wait a little bit and very quietly
say, "Thank you." "That's it."
     Now that is the final point of all the Power processes.  Now this
is not Power Plus.  Now with these other things that we were finding
that were indicating - that people were taking 90 hours, 100 hours.  We
had to have something that would help a person who was receiving the
commands to cycle on the track, get the concept of cycling on the track
better.  So we introduced a process which we called, we didn't give it a
name to start off with, but it became known as the Existence process,
and this had just 2 commands, which is, again look at this for
precipitating cycling on the track which is, "What is?" is the first
command.  The second command is "What isn't?"  Now what is, is that
wall, say.  What isn't, is what I did yesterday.  So you get now, the
first command tends to get a present time answer, "What is?".  The
second command, "What isn't?", tends to precipitate an out of present,
you know, another sort of answer, and so this again it doesn't always
work as perfectly as, I'm giving it almost a copybook way the process
would run.  But it didn't always run like that, obviously.
Nevertheless, the commands go: "What is?", "What isn't?", just to get
that the end point of this process is when the person is cycling nicely,
not necessarily aware analytically, "I am cycling on the track, aren't I
clever?" The person invariably doesn't know that he is cycling on the
track.  But this is where auditor awareness indicates and also the
person's reality of what really is and what really isn't is coming up,
up, up, up, up you see.
     Now frequently you can do - a person will give you his first
answer.  Say, "What is?" He will say, "I am." Well now, that can be just
a very glib answer.  And although it sounds perfect, it isn't
necessarily perfect at all.  It is just off the top of the head.  It's
touched nothing.  And yet that can be the first answer and it
encompasses everything.  And now this is where auditor awareness is also
vital.  You see why it is necessary to have those things we are talking
about really there.  So anyway, we found that even by, with this we're
sort of helping to get the person the pattern of the person to cycle
effortlessly on the track, you see how much easier, once the person is
doing that when you run the next one, "Tell me an existing condition,"
"Tell me how you have handled it" or "How have you handled it?" * How
they are already going backwards and forwards on the time track, and so
when you start the next process, the pattern is there and so it happens.
So that tended to speed up the running of the - what we called then -
the Conditions process.
     Now we've got the Existence process, which was #5 subsequently but
let's call it as it went.  We just called it the "What is - What isn't
Process" and then we called it the Existence Process, so now we've got
the Existence process, which is simply put there because of those things
which were going on because - this is not said in any derogatory way at
all because I don't think the concept of those first things one learns
about auditing, which were called training drills, were not really
understood.  So that precipitated the difficulty of the success of this
     So then the other process was to help this other one work faster
because that is the significant process.  So now you got this one.  Now
we found that even there these other things were still taking place, so
it was for the sake of the person Being audited, * because auditor
inadequacy and not making auditors wrong.  It's just that the people who
were talking about those first steps, the training drills, didn't know
what they were talking about because they didn't understand them either.
And the people that they were passing out as adequate hadn't even
touched first base of what those things were there for - in other words,
confronting, the delivering of a communication just as far as you wanted
to achieve the purpose you wanted to achieve.  The ability to
acknowledge in such a way that the thing is completely acknowledged
without stopping anything.  You know, all these types of things which
are the beginning, the things you learn before you ever start auditing.
     OK, well now, these things were still intruding, even in the
running of the process as simple as "What is?  What isn't?".  So we
thought, how can we help the person more?  Well if a person can
recognize a source, then it will be a gradient into "What is?  What
isn't?".  So then we came to another; we put another one before the
Existence process, which we called the Source process later.  And this
goes: "Tell me a source.  Tell me about it." So and it was for a person
to discover a real sense of source.  Because lots of people are so mixed
up on what a real source is of anything.  So we just get people to say a
characteristic type of thing which was a frequent answer.  "Tell me a
Source." "The sun."
     Now you've got to run the charge off that.  So you say, "Tell me
about it." And the person will say, "Well, the sun is there." and they
might say, "It is the source of light." The fact that it isn't really
the source of light is neither here nor there, but for that person's
reality at that time, it is the source of light.  But you know, any
person who is really into that scientifically will tell you that the sun
is not really a source of light at all.  However, but you know for that
person's reality, that is a source.  Now to get them to have a better
idea of what a source is, you say, "Tell me a no source," not a non-
source.  "Tell me a no source."
     So if the person looks, you see, and he'll say, "The piano." And
you wonder why he's saying the piano is a no source.  And he'll probably
say, "It's not a source of light."
     Now, whatever answers the person is giving you, this is muzzled.
Each one of these - it's vital that it should be muzzled.  And what the
person gives as his answers are fine.  You know, *whenever it comes
until the person's concept of a source.  Now this has a very interesting
phenomena because a person who is off source and can not spot source of
what is, is invariably off target in life.  They blame the wrong things
or give the wrong reasons for why this happened or whatever it may be,
and in physical life a person can't see what something actually is and a
very good analogy for that is, you know those, if you look at the
bookcases with the glass cover, they're with glass doors.  And when
there are no books in the thing, a person's vision will, if a person is
way off source, a person will think that the back of the bookcase is
where the glass is.  It's that sort of thing.  They see things that way
physically as well as mentally and you will find that they are
constantly stumbling because they can't see exactly where the step is
and if there is anything in the way they'll kick it and they'll stumble
over stones.  And when they're stepping up onto a curb, invariably they
hit the top of it.  They don't quite make the distance.  Because their
assessment of judgement is off.  Because they are basically in relation
to our lingo, "off source," so off source.
     Now I am giving physical examples of a person who is really off
source.  Now there are not so many people who are that bad, but you will
notice a number of people who frequently stumble.  If there is anything,
even if it's a little bit, their judgement of things is out physically
and that is a physical dramatization of it, and yet in their thinking,
invariably you'll find they're completely off target as to the reasons
for anything.  Now, but there's a fantastic end phenomena to this
process and the first time I ever ran it, it was absolutely the perfect
end point.  The perfect phenomena took place.  I would say the name of
the person because I remember it so well.  Now I had been running her on
it for 2 1/2 hours and I put a break in because I had other hats as
well, and I had to charge through the front office to see, I was still
the only one doing these processes, before I passed them on to the
person, the other people who had to come in and do the other auditing.
Now I charged over.  I said to her, "We'll take a quarter of an hour
break." I charged over to the front office to look at my In Box to see
if there was anything I had to handle.  Charged back again, was all
ready and she came back in and she said, "John," and I said "Yea," and
she looked fantastic.  She was one of the biggest moaning minnies we
have ever had on the Briefing Course.  And she said, "John, something
fantastic has happened." And I said, "What's that?  Tell me." And she
said, "It's almost as if I have had a visual depth change in my vision."
     Now the perfect end phenomena of the Source process is when the
person suddenly says, "The whole room looks brighter." Because they are
seeing everything in place, which they had never done before.  So it was
not a bad thing that those other people didn't have perfect TRs.
Because that brought about the discovery of these other processes.  Now
when a person can see where everything is and in fact are relatively on
source.  The ability to be able to say, "What is" and "What isn't" is
fantastically increased and already you've shifted a hell of a lot of
the crap which was preventing the incident in which they are stuck from
surfacing.  So when you get into the final process, it only took one or
two or three brackets of commands and bong bang whoom and it's there.
And that's why the processes began to run so quickly after awhile.
     Now I couldn't guarantee that in every - there was at one stage we
had 50, 60, 70 auditors running.  You know, that had been interned and
gone through internship with us.  That's why the internship was a
minimum of, we kept them there until we were sure they understood.  And
yet when we sent them out to the world, they wanted to be so important,
they forgot.  You see, their basics were still out.  The basics we were
talking about today.  The things they ought to know about before they
ever touch an E-Meter.  Those things should have been absolutely, you
know, perfect, but because they didn't have, even though we got them to
a point where we were sure they knew the real purpose of all these
processes, and even there, you see, Ron said to me, "Well we're still
not sure, John, but we've got to get them out and then you've got to
travel around to every organization in the world because we had two
students from every organization on my internship.
     Now, I couldn't be watching every one of those sessions because
they were all running concurrently, you know, every day.  So all I could
go by was handle the people that weren't, go and review the people who
were not really moving and find out and add to our technology.  This was
the way I was discovering all these things which became, you know, vital
in the technology, but never did we do what you and I are doing now.
Because that is where the fault, the whole foundation was out.  So no
matter what they learned on top of an out foundation, when they went
away, and even though they were producing good results when they were
retained here under supervision by someone who had originated and knew
the processes, even they were OK and safe when they were there with me,
but get them back to their own organizations and they immediately
started dramatizing their own bloody importance.  Sorry I'm swearing.
But they were still dramatizing their own individual importance, and
they wanted to be more important than all the other staff members and so
they were suggesting an air of mystery about them.
     But, you see, if you tell a person before hand the end point of the
process you are about to run on him, you ruin it.  Because the person is
going to start working towards that.  So to this point, which is for
this reason, it was necessary to keep that information confidential.  So
you see this was...  It wasn't even justified, it was an absolute
necessity to keep those things, when they got back there, because we had
indicated to them, you know these things purposely, you know, and of
necessity must be run without the person trying to work towards a known
goal.  Because the whole reality...
     Peter: You mentioned this business about not telling the person the
end point of the process.  Um, yet we're putting these on this tape
which might or might not go out and you've also have already done it in
seminars in the States.  And I know you told me that in those seminars
there were people who were, well, they were newcomers.  So is this going
to have some bad effect on them?
     John: Well, this sort of process is for auditors, not for public
consumption.  This tape is for auditors.
     Peter: This tape...  This is not going to be general issue, like
say, the one we did earlier?
     John: No.  No.  Oh no, no.  No, this is for auditors.
     Peter: Who have already had the Power processes.
     John: Who already had them, yea, and even if they haven't had them,
well, if they are going to audit, you see, so many people haven't had
them, like Steve Bisby has never had them, but he's running them.  Yea,
he's running them.  And he can't even run them, he told me.
     Peter: It would be very difficult to run them if you didn't have
subjective reality on that level of auditing.
     John: But now what I've told you, you know about, and I'm trying to
make it as simple and real as it came about, because all these things
became realer to me as I was doing it.  And as I was the only one doing
it, um, I can tell the story as it happened.  Because once I made the
error and the name of the person, he was *Fila Lloyd.  Because I was the
auditor and I goofed.  I made the error because he was wandering away
and I said, "Where are you?".
     Peter: In the middle of a process.
     John: Yes.  You see which was a complete crime because I was not
muzzled.  I was talking and yet luckily I didn't, he didn't answer the
question.  Because he was so much onto what was happening that, uh, you
know the question didn't intrude.  Thank God.  It didn't interrupt.  I'm
just telling you because I goofed.  And so you can see the signif..  Now
had he answered that question, I would have brought him right out of,
the fact that he was, in actual fact, magnificently running the process.
Because he was way back describing something else.  And sometimes a
person, you know, they, although you are trying to get in the, you know,
the commands for a unit of time.  You never interrupt an answer.  The
full answers are prime, of prime significance.  And then you don't waste
time.  You give them a very fast, ever so gentle, acknowledgement.  And
then in with the next command as fast as you can again effortlessly.
     Peter: You don't rush it.  You don't say quickly.
     John: No, no, no.  It is quiet, calm, collected but again, commands
for a unit of time so that you don't, there is no chance of the person
Q-ing and A-ing with himself on where he is going.  You know, I
shouldn't use Q-ing and A-ing but you know what I mean, sort of
wandering a bit here and wandering a bit there.  You want to keep them,
once you've got them on the beam.  You want to keep them moving on that
beam.  And now, you see, if these people had this understanding.  I'm
not being a..ok.  Sorry, I'm not trying to discredit them for it.  They
just don't know.  When Hubbard gave the processes just as ordinary
processes on the Class 8 course, and these chaps had never run them,
didn't know anything about the running of them.  That is when it killed
the magnificence of these processes.  So I hope that it's made it
     Peter: Yah.
     Joan: Well, it's a simple question, which came up when you were
talking about the preclear who after the break in the session told you
about the change in perception.  Right.  Um, and I just wondered if it
happened very often and why it happened that the EP came in between
sessions, because this happened to me.
     John: Well it did happen.  It wasn't a very frequent happening.  At
least it wasn't discovered to be a very frequent happening.  It might
have happened more often than we knew.  Uh, however, the very first time
it happened, was with the first person I ever ran on the Source process.
And that happened.  I'd been running the process for about 2 1/2 hours
and it was about time to give her a tea break anyway and also I had to
charge over to the front office to see what was in my basket and all
that.  I have explained the phenomenon to you on the other side of the
tape.  However, I went there and I came back and I was sort of in my
auditing room waiting and *Joe came in and as she stood at the door of
the room she said, "John, I've had a most extraordinary thing happen to
me.  I've had this complete visual depth change.  You know like it's the
way I see things and all that." So that was out of session obviously
because it was during the break.  And I have concluded, that you see in
a session in a confined space, with walls and various things.
     And as she moved out into the open and also the process I don't
think even when the person is asleep that those processes stop running.
Like Jane Kember had hers, well whatever was decided as hers, out of
session and a few other people did too.  Because now those processes are
definitely powerful processes and once the person is on them running,
though you might say "end of session" or "that's it," or something like
that.  But the Being doesn't stop.  I mean, it was so bloody stupid of
Hubbard to not take cognizance of the fact that, once you start a
process like that, the fact that I say "end of session," or "that's it"
or something, does not mean to say that that Being is *animating the
body is a nudderbut?, is going to, um, you know, sorta suddenly agree
with me.  The Being is looking.  That's what the Being came to do.  And
the Being goes on looking, so the process goes on running.  And you
know, quite often the end phenomenon of the process just suddenly
clicks.  It just happens with the person, sometimes when the person's
asleep.  And they think they are having a dream.  It might have happened
more often than we knew.  However, that was my own, and I said to
Hubbard, "Well you know, these people are eager beavers, I mean they
haven't come to get this processing to do nothing.  We can't just tell
them when they, when, tell the Being "you may or you may not go on
looking." Because there was this awful business of the high crime of
self auditing.
     Well, now one person that Fred *Hare was auditing.  Most of the
problems I had.  Well the one with whom I had the most frequent
problems, was the people that were *Fred Hare's preclears.  He was
auditing a chap from Canada.  A very nice chap.  He was a millionaire
and he was staying at the Felbridge Hotel.  And when he got home in the
evening after dinner and all the rest and he went to bed.  He remembered
the command of the process and he went on asking himself the process.
While he was quickly getting into bed, and when he was lying in bed, he
was sort of scouting the process for himself.  So he did come back the
next day and Fred Hare couldn't touch sides of.  It's just about
everyone that Fred Hare audited ended up in some mess.  And this poor
old chap, Peter somebody or other.  He was a very nice fellow.  Anyway,
so he had to come to me for Review, and I found out with him, that he
was consciously running the process on himself.  Now that gave me sort
of an idea that maybe lots of people are subliminally running the
process on themselves.  Because the Being, once he starts looking and
you've given him a way to look, doesn't stop, you know, just because
Hubbard has said you've got to say "end of session" and everything must
stop.  The Being says, "to hell with you.  You can't, you know, you
might do what you damn well like to my body, but I am going to go on."
     Peter: Do you think this can happen on all processes, all of the
Power processes?
     John: I am quite sure it does.  Um, you know, like most Beings who
came into that world, if you like, most people who came into that world,
the Beings animating the bodies were there to look.  And every time you
gave them something that they could use, that could help them to look,
boy, they started looking.  You know, they didn't come, they didn't come
into that world just to fiddle around and do nothing.  That's my
consideration.  And so the processes went on, the Being went on running
the process.  And that's about the best answer that I can give myself,
and so therefore about the best answer that I can give you.
     Peter: Are you going to talk about the other processes now?
     John: Now, did you have anything else you wanted to ask in relation
to what, um, you know, in relation to what's been said so far?
     Peter: No I don't think so, except, are we going to cover on the
tape, this idea that the issues on these processes aren't clear?
     John: Oh ya, we discussed that this morning.  Um, but should I talk
about the other processes first?
     Peter: I think that would be a good idea.
     John: Alright.  Well now, we found, I was beginning to talk about
it on the other side.  We found sometimes, I think I did talk about it.
Power Process number 2, You know when a person was so steeped in a
practice, treatment, or belief, that it had collapsed them into the
basic bank itself.  And so the running of the Conditions process somehow
or another didn't quite un-stick the practice from the bank.  And so we
had to get a process.  We listed this way: "Tell me some treatment,
practice or belief you have been connected to." That's right.  Connected
to, because connected to the bank, you have been connected to whether
you have left it or not.  "Tell me some practice treatment or belief you
have been connected to, whether you have left it or not." and then you
list it.  And you got the charged item.  The significant process.  And
um, once you've got that.  Say it was growing flowers, I'm just giving
this one, a relatively uncharged item.  And so then you said, "Tell me a
condition encountered in growing flowers.  How was it handled?"
     Peter: Not, "How have you handled it?" this time?
     John: "How was it handled?" or "How have you handled it?" Uh, OK,
We'll say, "Tell me a condition encountered in growing flowers.  How
have you handled it?" How did you handle it?  As long as it takes it
into the past tense.  Rather, it wasn't, that second question was to get
the cycling going, you see.  Now, and that was to run out all the charge
on that practice.  And then when you had run out all the charge out on
the practice, you then went back to running 6.  Well, what became Power
Process No. 6, which is, I'll refer to now as the Conditions Process,
which is, "Tell me an existing condition.  Tell me how you handled it."
And that took the charge out of the practice and then you could go back
again and run them, but now this happened.
     Some put *2, people during the course of running this repair
process as we called it.  Because the person was so involved in the
treatment, practice or belief.  We called it a repair process for No. 6,
for the Conditions Process.  So you repaired the person, you know, in
order for them to be able to run the Conditions Process.  So now what
happened, um, is one person out of session, actually had the end
phenomena of No. 6, of the Conditions Process.  In other words, had a
revivification, having, you know, on 2, in between sessions on 2.
     So Ron screamed like a stuck pig about the auditor overrunning.
That No. 2.  So, my God, it was one of the most terrible crimes ruining
these fabulous processes done.  Right well now, so that person duly was
drawn and quartered at Hubbard's instruction.  Then, we had it happen
again.  The same thing happened to the second person.  Then we had it
happen in a session, when the person actually revivified on No.  2.  You
see now, instead of, instead of Hubbard shutting that bloody, premature
ejaculating mouth of his, and saying, "Well now that's interesting.
What tech can we find from that?", he clamped down with "all wrong what
had been dones".  But in the end he had to change that very smartly,
because it transpires, you see, that a practice, treatment or belief can
be so basic that it is part of the bank.  And therefore it is quite
possible that a revivification can take place on that process and then
which case if that happens, you don't run the Conditions Process at all.
     Peter: Well, it occurred to me as soon as you mentioned it that
obviously this could be the basic condition to be run on them.
     John: Of course.  Yea, well, it is so self-evident, but if you had
heard the way he'd behaved.  This was his fantastic propensity for
destroying the technology.  And I'm quite sure that, had I not been
there at that time doing what I was doing, I don't know whether someone
else would have protected my place, but the fact is that I was the one
     And constantly I was guarding the technology from Hubbard.  Because
if anyone could slaughter it, he did, with his premature judgement all
the time.  Instead of, like every time anything happened I thought,
"Well that's interesting.  Let's see what we can discover from it." And
so we got new tech.
     Now with him, if anything happened other than he had predicted it
was going to happen, it was a violent breach of tech.  It was a high
crime, and it was this and that and so on.  Anyway, so that was the
reason for Power Process No. 2.
     Now we also had found that some people, either as an auditor or
receiving auditing, had mishaps.  They goofed badly as an auditor or had
a tough time being audited, which made it very difficult for them to
receive auditing.  You know, either through the goofs they had made as
an auditor, so which made it difficult for them to receive benefits from
it.  Or they had had a difficult time in previous auditing and it was
difficult for them to benefit from just the straight running of the
     So to repair that, out came this repair process, which was very
simple.  "Tell me a condition encountered in auditing.  How was it
handled?"  Either by yourself or the auditor.  And so you ran that
repetitively, until you ran out all the charge on auditing and the
person was then quite ok and able to receive auditing, in which case you
started straight on to Source, Existence, Conditions.  It was a straight
run through from there.
     Now then, the other repair processes were the bracket of repair
processes called 1, 1A, 1B.  Now these processes essentially were there
to handle some cases where a person was constantly committing present-
time overts.
     In other words, their type of average or normal behavior for them
included doing things that were not, were constantly anti-social.  Let's
say it that way.  You know, it was quite ok.  They were always
antisocial.  Their present time living was, in essence, anti-social and
they didn't know that it was, in most cases.  And so this, it was very
difficult to get a process to run, for them to benefit because they were
using the process in the same way, in an anti-social way.  You see.  And
so what we had to do then was to run this process to get them to be
aware of what they were doing.  It was, "What have you done?  What
problem were you trying to solve?  What have you withheld?  What problem
were you trying to solve?" Now, it was definitely run with those because
although O/W had been changed from, "What have you done?  What haven't
you said?"  Do you remember it was changed to that.  But in this repair
process, it was definitely, "What have you done?"  and "What have you
withheld?" because it was, you know, they were having a pattern that was
so chronically anti-social.
     And so you ran that until a person had a realization about his or
her present-time behavior and at that time, you know, when that
happened, the process had served its purpose and then you went back and
started again with Source, Existence, Conditions.
     Now, uh about this time Ron finally let me have my say and called
them the Power Processes.  So now we've got, I'll number them for you.
We've got the, No.  1 was a repair process, which I have mentioned; No.
2 was called a repair process because it was preparing a person to be
able to run on 6, but in actual fact, it could be, as transpired later,
an end process in itself, because the person could revivify on Power
Process No.  2.; No.  3, Power Process No.  3, was the process where you
handled, the outnesses in auditing, either being given or being received
that were so heavily impacted on the person that it made it very
difficult for any process to run.  You run out, then, the difficulties
to prepare them for a straight run through on 4, 5 and 6.  Number 4 was
the Source process.  Number 5 became the Existence process.  I'm sorry,
the Existence process became number 5, and the Conditions process, the
final one, became number 6.
     Peter: Which is the one you originally started out with.
     John: Which is the one we started doing, and they evolved
     Peter: Ya.  Just to get on tape exactly what these processes are
and the numbers.  Could you go over that summary again, giving this time
the numbers and the commands of the processes, so that anybody listening
to this tape will know exactly what you are talking about?
     John: Yes, certainly.  Well now it is better to start out with, now
the main, the significant processes are 4, 5, 6.  Four is the Source
process.  And the commands for that are, "Tell me a source.  Tell me
about it.  Tell me a no source.  Tell me about it." And the end
phenomena of that process is when the person just suddenly has a
complete visual shift.  In other words, the room all around seems more
real, more brighter and more solid.  That is the end phenomena of that
process.  And it actually happens just exactly like that.
     Now the next process, number 5, was called the Existence process,
and the commands of that are, "What is?, What isn't?".  And the purpose
of that is to precipitate in the functioning of the preclear as a
preclear, the cycling on the Time Track, and also the increase of
reality.  To be able to see what is and what isn't.  What really is and
what really isn't.  And that is virtually it.  And you can run that to a
floating needle.  You can run that to a really big happy realization and
very good indicators.
     And then when you have, when you have reached that point on that
process, then you are ready to go onto Power Process Number 6, which is
the Conditions Process.  And the commands for that process are, "Tell me
an existing condition.  How have you handled it?"  With a present-time
first command, and the past tense second command.  Which again
precipitates the cycling on the track in order to bring into, to remove,
um, all the stuff that prevents a person from seeing the, uh, condition
which is still existing, in which they are stuck and which dominates
their present life and their present lifetime behavior without their
knowing and it could be anywhere in the person's existence.
     And so therefore you sort of, the process almost compels the person
to cycle on the Time Track while the process is Being run.  Because the
present time first command, "Tell me an existing condition.", is there
simply because that stuck incident is still existing, and in the
preclear's, uh, subliminal considerations and that incident is still
going on and they're still resisting it.  And they're still reacting to
it, you see, all the time in present-time living.
     And then the second command, "Tell me how you've handled it." We
have varied that several times, but basically it's a past tense command
to get them to reach back, back, back, until they eventually they draw
that stuck incident right into where it's stuck in present time.  And
then the end phenomenon of this process is the revivification of that
stuck incident of when the person's confront has expanded to where they
are able to have it, look at it, and erase its impact on present time
living.  And that would be a revivification of that incident.  And
usually just prior to that happening, um, the person begins to go
psychi-anaten because the incident either produced death or severe shock
or trauma or something of that nature which, you know, the person has
been backing off ever since the incident.  So usually you'll get what
happened after the incident, which is unconsciousness, death or death
being an extreme state of unconsciousness.  You get, that comes in
reverse, and you get it, they are going through the death in order to
confront the incident.  You see, and then when they get through to it,
it revivifies, and then the person is released from the impact, you
know, that that incident is having over their present time living.  And
so that is the end phenomena of the power, of the final Power Process.
Now is that clear enough?
     Peter: Yes, except that there are the other three, the other, the
earlier numbered processes.
     John: Yea, well now, the first repair process we had was number 3.
Now we found that some people, as I have mentioned in 3, were so at the
effect of auditing, because they had audited badly at some stage and
goofed, or they had got auditing which had never been properly handled.
Like, they might have had something to confront but the auditor didn't
allow them to confront, or the auditor had goofed on the person when the
person was receiving auditing and the person had been backing off
auditing ever since.  And so then, you couldn't run the processes, the
Power Processes like 4, 5, 6, Source, Existence, Conditions effectively
because the person was backing off their auditing all the time.  So 3
was a repair process for all parts of auditing, whether given or
received, in which had caused, you know, some kind of traumatic effect
that made the person resist auditing.  So 3 was there to repair any
resistance a person had to auditing.  Now Power Process No.  2 was...
     Peter: What are the commands for 3?
     John: The commands for 3 are, "Tell me a condition encountered in
auditing.  and then, Tell me how you handled it.  How have you handled
it?  How did you handle it?" So long as it...
     Peter: or "How was it handled?"
     John: "How was it handled?" but in this ..Yah, "How was it
handled." That's correct.  "How was it handled?" Because it could either
have been handled by the auditor, and by the preclear, or/and by both.
You see so, "How was it handled?" Thank you for correcting me there.
Because the command was, "How was it handled?" because there were two
people there and both were trying to handle it.  I dare say at the time.
     So when that's all cleared up, and the person is no longer
resisting auditing, you can go straight onto 4, 5, 6.  Now Power Process
Number 2 is when we found that 6 was not running well because a person
was so stuck in a former treatment, practice or belief that it had
collapsed with the bank without necessarily being right in the bank but
it had collapsed them with a basic bang and so they couldn't run 6,
until such time as one had cleared out the impact of the treatment
practice or belief.
     And the command, the way one did this was one, one ran a listing
process, a listing command first, which was, "Tell me some treatment,
practice, or belief you have been connected to, whether you have left it
or not." Now the connected to is vital there, because the thing was
connecting it to the bank.  And so and the second command was..  Sorry.
You listed, you got the item, which I said, might have been, growing
plants or flowers.  And then you put growing flowers into this thing.
"Tell me a condition encountered in growing flowers.  Tell me how you
handled it" or "How did you handle it?" Just as long as it is past
tense.  It doesn't have to be exactly like...  the idea was just to get
the cycling going so the person could release themselves from whatever
pressure was Being superimposed by a treatment, practice or belief.  And
then usually if all the charge ran off that, then you could go back to 6
and run it to its end phenomena.  But sometimes 2 was so ingrained that
the incident itself was in the practice, treatment or belief.  And so
you would get a revivification on 2, in which case it was not necessary
to run 6.
     Now, then you come to 1, where you get the continuous overt case,
where a person's behavior is so anti-social and the person is unaware of
it that they are using the processing anti-socially because that is the
way they behave.  And so to free them from that, you run Power Process
Number 1 which is another corrective process and simply going in direct,
"What have you done?  What problem were you trying to solve?  What have
you withheld?  What problem were you trying to solve?" And you run that
until the person has a reality of "Oh my god, I have been doing that all
the time and I didn't realize, you know, that I was hurting anybody or
that it was anti-social." When a person actually gets that, then you've
freed them well enough to go straight onto 4, 5, 6.  So those 1, 2 and 3
were processes actually to facilitate the running of 4, 5 and 6.  But as
I said, in the case of 2, you sometimes reach the end phenomenon which
completely obviated the need to run 6.
     Now that is the, you know, the full bracket of the Power process.
4, 5, 6 are the vital.  1, 2, 3 are corrective and as I said, 2 can
produce the end phenomena.
     Peter: Alright, now there's something else we discussed that
relates to the Power processes and this was the idea that they cannot be
run on Clears or above.  Would you like to say something about that?
     John: Yes, well, the thing of, whether I'm clear or above, whatever
I have been declared.  I have had those processes since doing the, you
know, finishing the clearing course and doing all the other things I
consider enabled me to be clear long before.  I have had the processes
run on me to re-experience them.  Because now, the fact of the matter
is, look at it.  The Source processes are in present time.  Not one of
us is so aware that we notice every single source there is to know.  So
I don't see why that couldn't be run on anybody at any level.  The
second process is also present time.  "What is?  What isn't?" All of
them actually, No.  5 the Existence Process is also present time.  And
I'd like to find the person who could tell you in infinity everything
that is and everything that, you know, you can run and look and this is
like, for instance, what we were discussing, you know, about our
exercises.  You know that would be a very good process to put in there.
To help a person expand on what is to help them to look at those things
that are in existence and as yet unobserved.  And find and be able to
say with certainty, "It is." You see.  And that process, one could use.
Take it out of, take it away from the consideration of Being a Power
process and just run it for that particular purpose, to help a person
sort out those things which are in existence and impinging on life and
uh... You know it would be...  We could put that on our...  We'll
discuss it anyway on the tape if you want to.
     And so there is no reason why that couldn't be run.  Now with the
other process, the first command is present time, the other one is, um,
past tense to get the person cycling on the Time Track.  Now as you
know, there are very likely many Time Tracks, and then there's also the
state of "no time," where the existence is going on but there is no
time.  So if one looked at it, I could see that you could run it for me.
These are my own considerations.  You could run that processes on
anybody at any level, at any level.
     When a person has...  Any level, I don't even like using the idea
of levels.  With all said, at any state of awareness.  You could run
them at any state of awareness.  You could run them at any state of
awareness until a person has..is totally aware.  Is infinitely aware,
shall we say, at which point they won't need any processing anyway.  So,
but, it was because of Hubbard again laying down the law.  There is only
one stuck incident.  And the process can only be run once.  But I'll
tell you that wasn't how it started.  Just let me tell you.
     Now, Hubbard said to me, uh, I'll tell you this is now the part of
the * when I'm doing all the auditing, I'm the only one auditing.  And
I'm taking in the results and we're discussing it and bulletins are
coming out and so on.  Now, I said to him various things that are going
on and then he said, "Yah you know what we'll do, John." He said,
"Everybody that comes here, before they even start on the Briefing
Course.  We'll insist they get run on these processes." Well, it
actually was about just Number 6, the Conditions Process.  "We'll insist
that the person get it, so that they'll get maximum benefit from their
training and they'll get case gain on the Briefing Course."  So that,
now that was what he was deciding.
     Now, when all these people started coming for processing from me,
and we had to get other people in and so on.  This looked like a
tremendous money-making thing.  So now these are discussions that just
took place between Fatty and myself.  Now Fatty is Hubbard and myself.
We were standing there at his office discussing these things seriously.
So I said to him, "you know, I've got *something to add to this.  I've
given these commands a thousand times...  I'd like to have a reverse
flow and have someone give these commands to me.
     He said, "Don't be ridiculous, John.  You are way beyond that.  You
don't need anything like that at all." I said, "Nevertheless, I'd like
to have a try."
     So, you know, he said, he just refused.  However let that be.  He
said, "Well OK John, I'll tell you what we'll do.  If you think those
processes can be run at a higher level, you know, a more advanced
person." He said, "We'll do it this way.  When a person comes, everybody
who comes in to do the Briefing Course has got to be run on those
processes.  That's a must, and they'll have to pay for them and so on,
you see.  It will be a prerequisite for doing the Briefing Course."  And
then he says, "We'll put in the levels."
     Then we were just forming the levels 0, 1, 2, 3, 4.  It was up to
Service Facsimile.  And then he says, "We'll put them in at level 5 as
Power Processes." Now he says, "When we put them in at the beginning,
right at the beginning before anything, before auditing, before
training, whatever they come here for.  We'll put them in to make sure
that the case is unstuck.  So that they can get maximum benefit from
other training or processing."
     So we put them in there.  "Then we'll go right through.  And when
they are in there..." I'm just remembering the whole thing.  "Now when
they're in there, we will run them to the end phenomena right at the
beginning.  We run them to the end phenomena, correct end phenomena of
each process.  Now when we put them in at Level 5, we run them to
floating needles."
     That was the exact conversation that took place between Ron and
myself.  "So we'll run them twice," he said.  "Run them to crack their
case so that they can get maximum benefit from anything.  And then we'll
put them in at Level 5 for extra expansion and we'll run them then to
floating needle." Now the funny thing about it is, I have experienced
that source phenomena hundreds of times, and I can be walking out
anywhere and I'll suddenly get something and everything brightens up.
I'm sure you've had that.  I'm sure you've had that many times.
     Peter: Oh yah.  Yah.  So many darn blows.  You don't quite know
what it is.
     John: That's right.  And everything brightens up around you.
     Peter: Yah
     John: So you can experience the source phenomena maybe an unlimited
number of times, until one reaches perfection, if there is such a thing.
So you know, this is part of the historical side of the evolution of the
Power Processes.  And you see, because I was constantly going with
him... going to him, you know, not any referrals but having personal
talks because there was not anyone else with whom I could talk and there
was, to start out with, there was no one else auditing them.
     And in any case, once we got to that stage, and then he made it
confidential first, and then he decided no, he wasn't going to waste
them down there.  He was going to make people go all the way up there.
Then he could charge a good price.  So that the whole, you see, you must
look at all the factors that came to bear upon the Grades and the
placement of the Grades and where the Power processes were put and why.
     You see, and why they were made confidential and why all of the
sudden it was 2,500 pounds for a minimum of 50 hours and if you went
more than 50 hours you had to ..  even if you finished in one hour, you
still had to pay for a minimum of 50.  And then if you, the person took
longer than 50, they had to pay for...  buy another 50.  They had to buy
it in 50 job lots.  And that is when the income of Saint Hill began to
go straight vertical in its increase.  Because of all the money coming
in from that.
     And he wasn't going to waste them down below.  That's why we never
had them starting, never had them in two places.  I didn't have any
discussions, after we decided we would crack the case first and then
they would run and then put them in, because they are very good
processes.  And then he changed all the rest of it when he was looking
at the financial aspects of it.  And the rest of the world ought to know
that, you know, that all the Standard Tech, the levels are not sacred.
They are there the way there are basically for financial reasons.
     Peter: So not only do you think these could be run on somebody who
was Clear, they could also be run on somebody who has had very little
auditing of any kind.  They might not be..They don't have to be..
     John: I have started people completely...  Look, I told about the
seminars I ran in California.  People who couldn't even use a meter came
and ran them.  I had from people in the street to Class 12 auditors on
those seminars.  There are a lot of those people, that were, they're
nice people, were honest enough to know, really, that although they'd
run the Power Processes, although they'd had them run on them already,
did not know anything about them at all so they came to find out.
     Now the people on the street had heard that I was a different kind
of person and you know I was quite willing to have them, whether they
could use a meter or whether they....because, I said, it doesn't matter
we're having...This time there will be no stops at all and no
conditions.  Anybody who wants to come will be welcome.
     And so I said, I'll just give them a brief talk and all the
commands will be written out on sheets of paper so that they don't have
any problem about trying to remember.  They can hold them next to them.
And you know, and those who can't use meters, it doesn't matter, because
if they run into any sort of difficulty, I will be available and I will
have a meter and we will soon correct it, if there is a difficulty.
Well, I had so little...in fact there was no stop at all.  And I
wouldn't let anyone else put in any stops.  So what happens?  Nothing
stopped.  There were no difficulties.
     There was just the one person I told you about on the walk who
thought that there ought to be some difficulties.  And then when she
came to me, I said, "Alright what happened?" She came and I gave her 2,
3 Reviews, I think.  Three little Review sessions, which removed all of
her considerations that it ought to be difficult, and then all of a
sudden she was sailing.  And so, you know, that was 4 weekends, and the
numbers of people ranged between 20 to 40 per seminar.  And then the
first weekend I ran just Power.  Then the others were interested in
Power Plus.  The ones that had done Power.
     So the next weekend I had two classes.  I had the new ones for
Power.  Because it was going by word of mouth around, you know, that
it's a lovely experience and it's worthwhile and so on.  So a new group
came for Power.  And those who had done the Power came for Power Plus.
So I had 2 groups going.  And so from then on, the last 3 weekends of
doing these seminars, I had the Power Group and the Power Plus group.
     So it ran off, and there was no, I didn't have any restrictions on
"You have got to be here exactly on time." I said, "We will start
approximately such and such a time but I'm not going to put any
hysterical pressure on it at all.  You know the time that we will start,
and if you want everything that, to know everything that's going, then
obviously, you will be here at that time.  But if you are not here at
that time, there is going to be no screaming and shouting or anything
like that at all.  I know that you want to get the information;
otherwise, you wouldn't be coming here in the first place.  I know you
want the experience for the same reason so why should I be telling you
how much you want it by doing something because you happen to arrive a
bit late." I said, "I'm quite sure that you are responsible enough to
look after those things yourself.  I will do my part of it, and you do
your part of it which is, you know, to be here to get the information."
     And so we left it at that and I had, they all arrived on time.  And
when it came to...  Obviously you can't expect all of the sessions to
finish at the same time.  And so when, you know, when they did their...
you know..  ran the first process, the Source Process.  Well, some of
them finished after an hour, some of them took an hour and a half, some
of them took 2 hours.  Right.  Well we'll say we did that in the morning
and, um, somebody finished and I said, "Right, we'll be starting the
afternoon session approximately 2:00.  So now you go off, find your,
enjoy your new space and have yourself some lunch or whatever and be
back at approximately 2:00, cause we'll have a little talk and then I'll
give you the commands of the next process."
     And so they all finished the Source process in time to have lunch
and come back, but they didn't all finish at the same time.  So I wasn't
going to say, well, you know, say somebody finished at 1:30...  Somebody
finished at 11:30, some couples, 11:30, you see.
     Now with them what happened was, the one would audit the one, and
then they would turn about.  Even still, some of them took an hour, an
hour and a half doing it on each other.  And when both were finished,
they would go off.  And then the same with the others.  And some of them
finished say about l:30.  And I said, "Well we'll, you know, I'm not
demanding that you all finish at the same time.  I want you to do this
effortlessly, as effortlessly as you can and as naturally as you can.
So just go in there to enjoy yourselves and to find out what you want to
find out and just let it go, and I'm not running around policing
anything.  This is your time.  This is your course and you go right
ahead." And so of course some of them finished at 11:30 and some of
them, say, some of the finished at 1:30.  So some of them had from 11:30
to 2:00 and some of them had from 1:30 to 2:00.  I said, "Well OK, well
now, we would like to start about 2:00 but you know, I am not Being hard
and fast about that.  You relax and go and have something, and relax
about it and have no anxiety because, if you do miss something, and you
want to, if it so happens that you miss something, then I'm still here
and you can come and ask.  We've got it all on tape.  A video tape, plus
these tapes..you know ordinary cassette tapes, so that you can catch up
on it." But in actual fact at no stage did anybody arrive that late.
They were always there on time.  They were a lovely bunch of people, you
know, with whom to work and their excitement, well, on a Sunday
afternoon when everyone had finished...  On Sunday afternoon when
everyone had finished, then I just invited them to speak about their
experiences if they wished.  And you know, there we heard some fantastic
stories.  Some really lovely, you know, I don't want to call them
success stories, but you know, we just heard of some lovely experiences
and breakthroughs, if you like.  Anyway, thank you very much.  I hope
that I have given you some idea of what it was all about.
     Peter: Yes.  Thank you John.
     John McMaster
Homer Wilson Smith           This file may be found at
homer@rahul.net              ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/act/JM2.MEMO
Posted to usenet newsgroup:  alt.clearing.technology