The cycle of a thetan goes like this.

      1.) A CHASE B

     He creates a universe with postulate A that contains conditions and
limitations on chasing B.  B may or may not be well defined, and may
validly change over time, but the REASON WHY he creates A is IN ORDER TO
CHASE B, there would be no other reason to have A.

     In fact without the chase, he wouldn't be able to keep A around for

     Oh no, its not true that this universe is here for no reason, and
the being just came along to meddle in it.

     This universe exists explicitly so he can stub his toe chasing his
girl up Mount Everest.

     A game with some aesthetics to it, win or lose.

     Passion, talent and honed skill.

     This isn't about winning, this is about playing.

     A GodSoul that only plays games that he thinks he will win is a
spaghetti noodle indeed.

     So the passion has to be in the playing, not the winning.  Once the
passion moves over to winning, he's gone, as he will bypass playing to
win directly via corruption, temptation and seduction.

     Cheating, deceit and treason.


     The beauty of winning.

     The beauty of losing.

     The beauty of having at least tried.


     As a natural matter of course in universe A, a universe of
conditions and limitations and RANDOMITY, the being will encounter a
postulate of failure.

     The failure IS the postulate.

     At this point he chooses to ask 2 questions:

     a.) Why did this happen?

     b.) What should I DO about it?

     These take him further away in time from the postulate of failure,
and thus more into the solidity of that postulate.

     3.) ANDS

     Since he is now seeking a wrong answer to those questions, as ANY
answer is a wrong answer, he feels miserable, desperately seeking an
answer he is terrified of finding out.

     This creates his first AND:

     To NOT KNOW and TO KNOW at the same time.

     He is reaching for the truth with all his might, and daring not to
find it.


     The correct way to deal with the postulate of failure is NOT to
move forward in time and ask questions about what MORE he can create or
do to fix or rememdy the failure.

     The correct way to deal with the postulate of failure is to be in
the postulate of failure until it vanishes on its own accord.

     God's can do that.

     After a life time of asking questions however, one needs to run out
the question asking first.

     One runs out a question by asking the question with no intent to
answer it.

     Its like a door that is stuck closed because it needs to be pushed
closed again to open it.

     The door has been slammed shut, and now he is trying with all his
effort to pull it open.

     That's like trying to answer a question.

     No, we want him to simply put his hand on the door, and pull gently
noticing with complete calm that it won't open, then push calmly to
close it again, until it opens.

     That's like asking the question without trying to answer it.

     It's the choice to NOT KNOW the answer that then springs the answer
into view.

     The effort to ask a question, and the effort to answer it are two
completely different efforts.

      One is a simple communication, the second is a hurried search for,
looking for, trying to find, seeking etc, which is pulling desperately
on a door to open it, when it only needs to be pushed closed again
lightly to obtain the result.

     Pushing the door closed is not knowing the answer to the question.

     The effort to ask a question is a SUCCESS.

     The effort to answer the quesiton is a FAILURE.


     Beings like to consider themselves somehow fundamentally smaller
than the universe A that they find themselves in.

     This protects them from waking up and having A vanish.

     But the purpose of creating A is to chase B, and so one might
expect that the power invested in not having and chasing B is the same
order of magnitude as the power invested in creating A in the first

     Thus the being when he tries to self audit, 'seeking' his basic
goals, still considers himself and his goals smaller than the universe
or his presence in it.

     Thus he misses his goals and the true enormity of power with which
he flowed himself into engagement with universe A, and thus he goes
reeling off into the end of time where a garbage pail awaits him.

     Thus successful auditing recognizes that A and B are of comparable

     How big is the universe you are in?

     Just so, then, are your goals, your desire to chase them, and the
things that oppose them.

     Hubbard used to call B GPMS.

     GPMS are not IN the universe, the universe is apparently made of


     The being considers that the universe A is big, and he is small.

     This is a necesssary deceit at some point to keep some game or
another going.

     He likes being small facing some unconceivable (big) odds.

     What's the glory in it otherwise?

     But to a being who can create in the mere conception of things, if
it is unconceivable, then it is uncreatable, and if it is uncreatable it
is unvanishable, so he gets stuck with unconceivable odds, because he
can't or won't conceive them.

     Glory is minimal payment for losing that game.

     So now he is in a dwindling spiral of getting smaller in a universe
that is getting bigger, and believe me universe A consists of a lot more
than just the physical universe that the men in white lab coats harp
about all the time.

     One way to run this is:

     How big a goal can you conceive?

     How big an opposition can you conceive?

     How small a goal can you conceive?

     How small an opposition can you conceive?


     Spot a big goal.

     Spot a big opposition.

     Spot a small goal.

     Spot a small opposition.

     Find failure postulates, questions, wrong answer seeking, and ands.

     Spot the garbage pail awaiting him at the end of time, head down,
if he continues with this nonsense.

     Spot the few pennies of glory he was paid for playing, in his

      NO   garbage pail.
      SOME garbage pail.

      NO   glory.
      SOME glory.

      Use NO and SOME as needed, it won't run on just SOME, most of our
history is in NO or REFUSED.

     When it goes SOME for real, you will know it!


     It is well known that the auditor should not evaluate for the
preclear about his case in session.

     To evaluate means to determine the truth or importance value of an
idea, event, or something that is real to the preclear.

     However the preclear is never allowed to C/S himself, to determine
his own auditing program, although it can be pretty much the same for
everyone most of the time.

     So SOMEONE has to evaluate for the preclear where he is on the
bridge and what his session program in general ought to be.

     There are common GENERAL things that need to be handled in every
preclear, but the handling of them will involve SPECIFIC occurances of
them that only the preclear will know.

     The general things are A chase B, pre postulates, self answering
questions seeking wrong answers, and NO, SOME and ANDS.

     The preclear expects the auditor to know the general items and
demands that the auditor evaluate properly what to audit and how to
audit them.

     However the preclear expects the auditor to NOT KNOW the specific
occurances, and thus the auditor must never pretend that he does or try
to guess and indicate.


     In order to audit properly, one must never ask questions the
preclear can not answer, and one must never do something that indicates
that something is true when it isn't.

     Thus "Has a withhold been missed?" can be problematic, remember the
bank is MADE of questions involving death and demise, and every question
the preclear asks of himself or is asked, restimulates his entire bank
in one swoop.

     You want to make the volcano shudder?

     Ask it a question.

     Thus canonical form should be something like tell me about, or
spot, or best of all get the idea of.

     For example do not run,

     Locate a time someone caused you to be angry.

     Run instead,

     Spot a time someone caused you to be angry.

     Spot NO ANGER - Spot SOME ANGER.

     But best of all is probably simply:

     Get the idea of someone causing you to be angry.

     Get the idea of not being angry.

     A being gets as he conceives, and conception is simply getting the
idea of something and thus having it.

     Thus we want to run the preclear as close to creative conception
and unconception as possible.

     Get the idea of being sad.

     Unget the idea of being sad.

     Strange English but remarkable results.

     Get the idea of asking a question.

     Get the idea of NOT asking a question.

     Get the idea of NO answer.

     Get the idea of SOME answer.

     Get the idea that getting the idea of something creates it in the
conception of it.

     Unget the idea that getting the idea of something creates it in the
conception of it.

      Get the idea that ungetting an idea uncreates it.

      Unget the idea that ungetting an idea uncreates it.

      Wham, native state.  See?


     Ands form the basic structure of the bank and the series of masses
the preclear considers to be himself, and which he is in self opposition
with and to.

     He WANTS something *AND* he doesn't WANT it at the same time.



     An indecision is an OR, a waffling between should I go left or
right with engines at idle.

     An AND is a DECISION to go BOTH left and right at the same time
with engines at full roar.

     An AND has so much power in it, that when the being is doing it, he
feels there is nothing there but frustration.

     He doesn't even have the power left to create the frustration!

     Mostly he feels like dying 'for no reason'.

     Basic ands then have to do with BE DO and HAVE.

     BE AND NOT BE at the same time.

     DO AND NOT DO at the same time.

     HAVE AND NOT HAVE at the same time.

     KNOW AND NOT KNOW at the same time.

     Then there are basic body ANDS in the sex, death and eating range
on the know to mystery scale.

     TO FRACK AND NOT TO FRACK at the same time.

     TO DIE AND NOT DIE at the same time.

     TO LIVE AND NOT LIVE at the same time.

     TO DIE AND TO LIVE at the same time.


     The entire know to mystery scale is there.

     TO THINK AND NOT THINK at the same time.

     TO EFFORT AND NOT EFFORT at the same time.

     You will find your preclear asking where his ability to create
force and effort went.

     Its tied up in to create effort and not to create effort at the
same time.

     TO FEEL AND NOT FEEL at the same time.

     TO LOVE AND HATE at the same time.


     TO REMEMBER AND TO FORGET at the same time.

     TO GO AND NOT GO at the same time.

     Any dicom can and has been turned into an AND by someone in their
effort to persist through time, in other words to live forever until

      Ands are endless and rich, they make up the fabric of the being's
insane involvement in the physical universe.

     "I don't want to live forever AND I don't want to die forever."

     No ands, no nut cases.

      How happy can a guy be who is trying to be both happy and sad at
the same time?

      How sad can a guy be who is tring to be both sad and happy at the
same time?

      Wanna be happy, be happy.

      Wanna be sad, be sad.

      The dicom is wide and oceanic at both ends.

      Absence of feeling is not neither happy nor sad, it is BOTH happy
and sad, too much of both at the same time makes nothing there.

      Take all the incidents on your track and stir them up into one even
mix, what color would it be?

      Close your eyes, what do you see?  Do you understand?

      The most divine shining white AND flourescent black at the same
time, make dismal eternal grey.


Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY  Is that too much to ask?
Sat May 12 16:13:26 EDT 2012