6107C14 SHSpec-29  Checking Ruds and Withholds

     To clear somebody at this time, he must be in a body, just so he can be
picked up and audited.  A thetan who has just dropped a body has to get
another one before we can clear him.

     When columns A, B, C, and D consistently register low after processing,
you know the PC hasn't found the auditor.  This is due either to an auditor
who doesn't impinge, or a PC who can't tolerate being effect or control.

     A case that hangs fire has an automatic not-is, which can wipe out the
needle read.  He'll tell you all sorts of overts on a sec check but not
consider them bad.  He doesn't think it's real.  He knows about it, but it's
all not-ised.  Don't get outraged with the auditor who missed it.  He didn't
really miss it.  All the time you are checking the PC over, you ask about the
auditing, so as to unearth the moment of not-is.  You'll make it safe by
putting it on a via, e.g.  "Have you ever thought it wouldn't hold up your
case if you didn't tell your auditor?" "Did you ever have objections to the
auditing room and just fail to mention it?" "Is there any time in your life
when you felt completely beyond help?" "Did you ever tell your auditor?" These
are tricky questions, but you're counting on the fact that, during that fifty
hours, something did get brought to view that can be re-examined when
spotted.  It requires a bit of cleverness to spot it.  There's no sense in
trying this technique before he's has any auditing; the ground hasn't been
plowed yet.  He's been like this all his life and thinks it's normal.  The
meter registers on disagreement and he doesn't have any yet. (In fact, you can
use "disagreement" as a broad-sweep ruds question when nothing else will
register.) The "This is normal" is in Dianetics, the Evolution of a Science,
as the "Everyone knows..."  The PC really knows it's not normal, but the
valence he's in considers it's OK.  You could ask, "What is life really like?"
to find out what "normal"is to him.  When we say "It's below his level of
reality," we mean he has some specialized compartmented values of existence,
which really have nothing to do with existence.  His level of reality has
nothing to do with other people.  This is his reality, so it doesn't register
when you ask for differences.  For instance, you ask for critical thoughts; he
says "No", and it doesn't register because it's all justified that he natters
continually.  The disagreement is in total agreement with his reality.  They have everything identified with everything, so there is nosense in disagreement.  The complexity of disagreement with everything is such that the disagreement is just the way things should be.  Thus there is no read.  An automatic not-is is an automatic disagree.  You have to be clever to unveil it all.  The PC has opted out of life because it was too much, but he knows he shouldn't have.  He will perhaps tell you that he has led a calm, orderly life; that nothing much has happened.  Actually, he just hopes he has no past.

     How do you get him back into the mainstream of life?  The meanest thing
you can do is to ask him, "Have you ever left anyplace?"  He answers.  Then
you hit him with, "Why?" Now you are asking for the points of departure from
the main highway.  You are asking, "What didn't you confront that you feel you
should have confronted?" Now the meter gets active.

     It can be summed up in this way, "Did you ever have anybody demand that
you put your attention on something?" "Have you ever had anybody tell you that
you're wrong not to have had your attention on something?" That's the basic
trick.  This comes up on problems.  The basic trick of life: making people
confront is the overt and having to confront is the motivator.  All deaths,
and the whole mechanism of death, comes from unwillingness to confront.  So
when people leave and feel they shouldn't have left, it is because there was
something there that was too threatening and it keyed in death, so they did a
Q and A on death and opted out of life.  They were running a no-confront on
people, giving people things that couldn't be confronted.  If you do that, you
get the idea that you can't confront.  After you get that idea, you can only
leave.  And when you can't even leave any more, all you can do is to go nuts.
When you get the why of leaving, you can ask if that's been a problem to him
at any other time.  You could get his PTP that way.  You can ask, "Have you
ever thought of blowing session?" "Why?" What you've done here is to walk
around, cleverly using all the buttons that he is using to lie there quietly
unchanged.  The buttons of the prehav scale can be used in this line, e.g.
"prevent", which has to do with problems.  The surprise element is effective
in all this, so it shouldn't be rote.  The PC must realize that he is being
interrogated by an intelligence.

     Control is associated with intelligence.  The labor - management
situation stems from suspiciousness of cleverness.  When people are un-clever,
they are easily overwhelmed by cleverness.  They can protest it with a
strike.  Labor's basic yap is against the intelligence of management, but
management is never bright enough to use intelligence as a counter-weapon.
Intelligence is an altitude factor.  This applies very strongly in sec
checking.  You won't get anywhere operating as a robot.  Similarly with ruds.

     If you know there is something wrong because the PC hasn't responded to
the correct processes, then there has got to be something wrong with
rudiments.  If you can't get the PC to respond well, it's not that he is
trying to hide from you consciously.  He is being a dead body up in a gully
covered with leaves, and you've got to work around cleverly to communicate
with him so he can be gotten back into life.  The trouble is that he thinks he
is just lying there quietly, and he isn't.  He is shooting guns and making all
kinds of fuss.  On the other hand, you don't want to get so helpful that he
comes to rely on you totally and never looks.

