shsbc:119
WHAT IS A WITHHOLD
A lecture given on
20 February 1962
All right. This is Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. What’s the date?
Audience: 20th.
Thankyou. What’s the month?
Audience: February. - Oh, thank you. What’s the year?
Audience: A.D. 12.
A.D. 12. All right. All right. We will let you away with that. Thank you very much.
Okay. Now, I’m going to talk to you about withholds. And this is all about withholds, so a
rather-relatively brief lecture. I have now found the common denominator of withholds. You
didn’t get an opportunity to see it in today’s demonstration, but that doesn’t make any
difference to that.
What is a withhold? A withhold is something that a person believes that if it is revealed, it will
endanger their self-preservation. In other words, a withhold is something that endangers the
self-preservation of the PC. And that is a very important definition. It’s taken me a very long
time to get that definition. It gives us a new line for 3D Criss Cross, although this is not about
3D Criss Cross.
And it, worked back and forth, is an absolute killer, because this is the reason whole track is
occluded. This is where your whole-track memory went. And this is the button on which it is
sitting.
So this is a very important discovery. Therefore, we would consider that that person who had
very little whole-track recall would consider themselves in a very dangerous position.
In other words, you’ve got a gradient here. The less whole-track recall, the more the person
considers they are in danger, and the less likely you are to get a withhold off of them. The more
fantastic the whole-track recall, the same thing. We are dodging here, somehow or another,
with that.
Now, that’s quite important to you, because it gives you and gives me ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-the
exact reason . . .
This is why you get off such as I am now going to say, and call them withholds. These are
actual student withholds.
“I went outside and looked at the sky and felt strange.” And an auditor bought it as a withhold
and worked it over.
“I had a picture of my mother’s bedroom, and I don’t know why.” That is a withhold.
“I spoke crossly to an instructor.” “George and Bill told me that they had heard that Agnes . .
.” And that is a withhold. Why is that a withhold?
All right. Let’s start with the first one first. Of course it’s safest to get off other people’s
withholds. These are all safe withholds. They are so safe. And that is all students tend to get
off on each other, is safe withholds. I’m sorry to send that arrow so deeply. They get off safe.withholds. If they reveal these things, it’d be perfectly all right to reveal them, because it’s
perfectly safe to reveal.
Now, why do we get into a tacit consent of this particular kind? Very interesting why we do:
overts on other people’s withholds. We take somebody’s withhold and we yap-yap at them,
and we trip them up with it, and we make them guilty with it and we sort of punish them a little
bit for having gotten off a withhold-we yip-yap on the subject. And after that, we are a little
bit afraid to get off a withhold of ourself, because we have an overt against the other person’s
withhold, so therefore, we don’t consider it safe to get off a withhold. Do you see what the
rationale of the overt is? We have an overt on other people getting off withholds, so we don’t
get off withholds, you see? Because it isn’t safe to get off a withhold.
Now, of course, the more unsafe you make it to get off a withhold, the battier it all becomes,
until you get a civilization like this one.
Now, the one thing by which the communist profits in Australia and Suid-Afrika are the laws
against perversion. The state, of all means, is regulating how you are going to perform the
sexual act. I think that’s very interesting. I've seldom seen any police officers in my bedroom.
And I’m afraid if I did they’d have short shrift.
Of course, I have had the people the police officers are supposed to restrain trying to crawl into
my bedroom windows, and a few things like that, you know, but that, of course, they
wouldn’t be interested in.
Now, what are they doing? They’re just trying to invent some new withholds, aren’t they? I
think that’s fascinating, because the communist uses blackmail of this particular kind as a
means of controlling heads of state.
In other words, if the state itself lends its weight to punishment of withholds, see, it has just
laid itself out to be crazy. Because now, anybody in the state can be blackmailed so as to
overthrow the state, because the state will punish the overthrow or the withhold. Do you
understand this? Or any part of this?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, there it is on the third dynamic. The state makes it unsafe for anybody to
confess to anything. So everybody is withholding from the state. What happens if you
withhold from the state, or the state misses withholds on you? Of course, you begin to hate the
state, and that is the downfall of nationalism.
Of course, this may be very fortunate. But nevertheless, they have sown the seeds of their own
destruction by the number of great laws which arise on how a person shouldn’t get off
withholds.
Let’s apply that to an auditing session. The auditor upsets the PC or tries to make the PC guilty
every time the PC gets off a withhold. Therefore, the auditor is making it unsafe for the PC to
get off a withhold. All right. Or the auditor trains the PC not to get off unsafe withholds. The
auditor then trains the PC to get off only safe withholds. And we read on an auditor’s report, “I
went out at night and looked at the sky and felt strange.” And that is a withhold. Great day in
the morning. That’s a safe withhold, isn’t it?
Well, of course, the funny part of it is, there it is. It’s not a withhold. It’s not a withhold at all.
So you can actually get into a games condition with your PC by punishing the PC for his
withholds. You can actually get into a games condition where the PC will only try to get off
safe withholds. And there you go.
Now, if a PC isn’t giving me withholds, I’m afraid that I would become persuasive. A
withhold is something that, if revealed, would be prejudicial to his survival..Now, naturally, his individuation comes from his withholds. This hyper individuation of the
PC, this only-oneness, this withdrawal into only self-all of that-and withdrawal out of
groups, and withdrawal here and there and so forth, all of these things stem exclusively, and
only and entirely from, of course, withholds which, if gotten off, the person believes would
injure their survival.
Now, the funny part of it is, is this is not true. The person gets an aberrated idea of what would
injure his survival if be got it off, don’t you see? And it’s this aberrated idea of what they dare
get off that brings about the condition of aberration. I think that possibly you’ve got one, two,
or three apiece-some kind of an average like that-that if you revealed it h the wrong quarter,
it’s factual that somebody would be likely to take action. See, if the state of New South
Guinea, or something of this sort, found out about this, well-huh!-might be a poor show.
You’ve all got some that were factual. There are some factual ones, see? Some real ones. You
get those real buried, and they get very encysted. And the other aberrated idea builds up on
those. And we get a build-up of that.
Now, the punishment of our parents, of course, we feel offhand that-this comes from past
life; 3D Criss Cross gets these areas cleaned up-but when we started this life, we already-had
the idea that if we disclosed certain things to our parents, or we did certain things, or we didn’t
withhold mean words and so forth from our fathers or something like that, we’d find ourselves
suddenly without food, clothing and shelter. In other words, we get this exaggerated idea.
well, it’s built on our past-life structure. But that’s a bad enough basis.
Now, we take off from there, and we move into areas and then do commit something which, if
revealed, would be very upsetting, or would have been very upsetting. And then other little
things start piling up on the top of that, and so on. And we get up to a point where we become
quite aberrated, quite individuated, and we get so we can’t even communicate with parts of our
body.
The result of all this, naturally, is a feeling of high antisocialness.
Somebody comes close to these withholds, and we believe implicitly, you see, that if we got
off this withhold, naturally we could just see the police running in. My God, the sirens are
going in all directions, you see, and police by the squad coming bursting in the front door,
probably with battering rams, you know? And they got handcuffs, and they’re all ready to put
them on you, you know, and drag you off. And naturally the cell they’re going to drag you to
is not any of the modern jails, you know, which just dramatize withholds; it’s probably one of
the old-time dungeons, you know, where they bury you up to the neck in water and leave you
there for forty years or something like this, you see? You get an aberrated idea of the
punishment in a jail, and this all of a sudden rekindles, you know? The auditor gets close to
one of these things, and this idea, ooooooh! you know. Oooo-oooooo-ooooo-ooo, you know?
At any minute this horrible series of circumstances are going to occur, and naturally we
consider the auditor dangerous.
No, listen, the auditor is only dangerous if he doesn’t pull the withhold. And that is a recurring
phrase that is starting to happen here in the school. There are certain auditors that we designate
as dangerous auditors.
Why are they dangerous? Because they will only tick and not pull a withhold. And we call
those people dangerous auditors. Why? Their PC’s are going to be mad at them, they are
themselves going to goof up and get lots of loses one way or the other, and they’re going to
always be involved in ARC breaks of some kind or another, they’re going to have people going
around gossiping about how bad Central Organizations are, and how bad they are, and how
bad everything else is and so forth. And they are dangerous.
But from the PC’s viewpoint, the-person becomes dangerous the moment they might find out
whatever this thing is, you see? The auditor appears for a moment dangerous. The auditor.might find out. And the PC gets ARC breaky, however, only when the auditor fails to find out.
The auditor has to go the whole way. And an auditor who won’t go the whole way, an auditor
who will only get off safe withholds off of a PC is dangerous. And that is today’s adjudication
on whether a person can audit or not: Are they a safe auditor or a dangerous auditor?
Oddly enough, it’s a complete reversal. The auditor who gets off safe withholds is dangerous.
And the auditor who will get off unsafe withholds is safe. You understand that?
Now, you’ve got to bust through any feeling you have on this and look at this square in the
teeth and follow it through, because actually, all of your activities as an auditor are totally, 100
percent, based on this one little fact. It all cones down to this: An auditor who will not pull
dangerous withholds Tom a PC is a dangerous auditor.
You’re going to have an ARC-breaky PC, your PC is going to be upset with you. There are
only two or three ways you could possibly mess it up, but how could you fail to do this?
One, you could fail to use an E-Meter. You could fail to make an E-Meter play any tune that
was-ever written by Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, you see? You could just fail to make an E-Meter
talk. In other words, you look at the thing and the needle falls off the pin, and so forth,
and there it is, and the parts are all collapsing and so forth, and we say, “Well, that needle,
that’s null. Ha-ha. That’s a null needle. Ha-ha.”
Hm. God, man. Well, you don’t have to clean it up in one session, but you have to make sure
that you’ve got another session.
All right. But you go a whole intensive, and you never pull any of these things, and you never
ask for missed withholds, and you never try to inquire any deeper into any of these things, and
that PC blows up in your face.
Every ARC break you ever got off of a PC was due to missed withholds. Although missed
withholds is brand-new as a principle, it’s been functioning this whole time. And every time
you fail to get off a withhold-you missed a withhold on the PC, you ticked it-you had an
ARC break. That accounts for every ARC break you have ever had with a PC, that accounts for
every PC who never wanted to be audited again by you, that accounts for all of your own
difficulties with PC’s, right there in one fell swoop.
Now, you could accomplish it by not operating with an E-Meter. You could accomplish it by a
very unreal or nasty auditing approach. Every time the PC said something, you say,
“Nyaaaaa.” You know, something like this. You could accomplish it by just having your
technology all backwards and shuffled into another deck. You could accomplish it by just poor
auditing. But in the final analysis, poor auditing only exists if a person is determined that
they’re never going to help a PC by getting off any nasty withholds. They’re going to be nice
to PC’s and they’re only going to get off safe withholds.
You almost have to use sjamboks and clubs on some auditors. I’m not kidding you. My
method on the thing is just to stampede the auditor on the subject; there’s more than one here
who’s already been stampeded by me straight at the subject. You know?
The only thing you should really worry about is when I give up on you. I’ve done that, too;
just quit, you know? And then you get very nice auditor reports. You get an initial or
something like that. I just won’t do anything more about it. Why? I know you won’t. But that
doesn’t include very many, and the other one is you start missing withholds . . .
PC goals and gains: “Well, l didn’t make any goals and I didn’t make any gains” and so forth.
Well, it might as well have been printed in letters of fire’ “Auditor has missed withholds on this
PC. Auditor did not clean up things on this PC. Auditor read the E-Meter upside down.”
Something wild went on here. That’s all. I mean, because frankly I have to tell you this. But
I’ve got you in a box right now with Prepchecking. You’re taped and targeted..The auditor who cannot get a result with Prepchecking will not audit. Uuuhhrrr! It’s been
weaving closer and closer to this point, see? We’ve been converging on this point. Technology
has been getting better and better and better and better, and here we sit looking at Prepchecking.
Well, Prepchecking gets a little better. There was a little change the other day in 3D Criss
Cross.
As soon as I found out that this applied to 3D Criss Cross, I realized that you can’t let a PC
cross out anything on a list. That’s you, not me-because the PC says, “That’s pretty
dangerous. Let’s see, that’s pretty dangerous. Let’s see, that’s pretty dangerous. And I think
this . . . this item, I think that’s awfully dangerous. I think we ought to have that off the list,
and that off the list, and that off the list,” and we just cross the whole list off. It’s all too
dangerous. And then you have missed an item, which actually amounts to a missed withhold,
and so the person gets upset with 3D Criss Cross.
So we can’t allow the PC, once he has- put it on the list, after we’ve blackjacked him, tricked
and hoodwinked him into getting it on to the list, we can’t let the PC take it off, even though
that makes more work on differentiation’s. I found this is the case I find PC’s will take live
items off the list if you don’t watch them. So, there it is.
So some of your lists are disappearing into smoke, and some of your items are being crossed
oft because your PC has misgivings upon the safety with which they can be revealed, since all
of these items went out of sight, to some degree or another, because it was very unsafe at
sometime or another to reveal them.
I’m looking at somebody right now that was going around with a very, very hot terminal
tucked under her arm in a family who believed implicitly that the exact reverse of this terminal
was a way of life and how to be closer to God.
And this PC just had to withhold this one like mad. And of course the whole-more the PC
withheld it and so forth, why, the hotter it got. This would have been heresy. It’s like the son
of a priest, you know; he wouldn’t believe in God. (Nobody gets that joke. Boy, you’re slow
today. You’re very slow today. Wake up.) The son of a priest, and he has a terminal called
“atheist.” See? That would be very upsetting, very upsetting. He’d have withholds. So would
the priest.
But anyway . . . Well, let’s take an example. Well, let’s just call it out of thin air “embezzler,”
or something like that, you see? And this fellow was born in a banking family where integrity
is all, you see? And he hears from his father, and he hears from his mother, and he hears from
his brothers and sisters in the business and so forth, and he’s got a hot terminal. He’s been one
of the best embezzlers that the country has ever had, don’t you see? Something like that.
And here he has to live in this atmosphere with this terminal. Hot, you know! So all the time
he’s pulling this terminal back. (I’m not saying that’s the terminal but . . .) You get the idea?
That’s a withhold! Man, would it be unsafe to be that embezzler. Right? And he might
dramatize it at any moment. And so he fights it and he fights it and he fights it, and then one
night he goes into the bank vault and he cleans out the whole thing and goes over the hill. See,
the wrong time, wrong place, wrong terminal, see, for his environment.
And when these things get badly restimulated and so forth, why, they’ve had it.
All right. Now some auditor is auditing him, see, and we get down to this terminal. And,
“Who or what would enforce an outflow from others?” see?
And he puts down “An embezzler.”
And he goes down the line, and the auditor goes down, and he had a little ARC break with the
auditor, something of this sort. The auditor looked at him crosswise, or didn’t acknowledge
him just right-and it’s not really an ARC break; it was just that. And he clicks on that other.one, you see? “You know this . . . I don’t . . .”-auditor has already missed a withhold on
him, and so forth-and he says, “I . . . I don’t know.” He . . .
We’re differentiating the list, and we get down to “embezzler,” and we . . . He thinks we better
cross that off, so he says, “Well, it . . . it really wouldn’t enforce an outflow. Cross . . . cross
that off the list.”
Gives him a second thought, and we mustn’t let the PC have that second thought. So there’s
that little change in 3D Criss Cross. You see why it is?
All right. Now let’s take up Prepchecking. These two things, you see, suddenly go hand in
glove. In other words, we have one straight line. We have Prepchecking as a basic for this
lifetime that keeps the PC in session, and then we have its extension, 3D Criss Cross, and both
of them are devoted to the same thing of letting the guy stand in the sun. They’re both devoted
to the same thing, you see? Getting him over all of his oddball notions about how dangerous it
would be to reveal the fact that he had a crooked left ear. Nothing to it. I mean, he looks at this
after a while and laughs. But he isn’t laughing at the time you start auditing him.
You say, “All right, now. Okay. Now, what about that activity there that was going on in
Tacoma?”
“(sigh) Now, let’s see. If I think of something else, or if I can get the auditor thinking or
talking about something else. . .” You know, this is all reactive, you know? So let’s move it all
over onto some other perimeter. Then he says, Well, it has to do actually with uh . . . Mexico
City.” In other words, he’s trying to throw red herrings. He can get into a point of reactively
regretting having mentioned it. And you’ll see him pass through that little band of regretting he
brought it up in the first place.
Now, if the auditing is bad, he does this often. If the auditing is good, he only does it once in a
while. It is always present, no matter how good the auditing is.
“I’m kind of sorry I brought this up. Now what is going to happen to me?” Of course, all the
time he’s being sorry he brought it up, you’re just crossing into the actual zone and area. You
actually have tremendous unknowns left on the whole subject. And the PC does not know
much, and a great deal, about this. That’s what the difficulty is. In other words, he still has
tremendous unknowns.
Now, in Prepchecking, also, there’s been a little discovery here about when the PC
equivocates, you know you’re looking at the package. When he starts to explain. Watch when
the PC starts to explain. At that moment add a What, One sub-three, or whatever it’s coming up
this time. And let’s find out what this little hot subject is he’s going over right this minute. He’s
explaining.
Now, there’s a rule. There’s a rule about this, about asking What questions. And this isn’t
really about What questions, but I’ll just show you what this is.
The first rule is: When the PC gives you a motivator, you know you’re on hot ground; and so
you always ask a What question that’s rather overt.
Says, “Well, my mother beat me every day.”
My What question, I’m afraid, at the moment is “What have you done to your mother?” l
would not even monkey with this motivator, see? I wouldn’t fool with it at all.
Now, the next gradient up, that would be the most certain ground to mine. Motivator,
motivator, motivator-man, that just takes the What question and practically writes it in legible
script in front of your face, you see?.Your next one up the line from that is the person is critical. The person is being critical of
somebody. Well, the criticalness-you can go on and pull criticism forever without getting
anyplace. You want to know what he did, did, did, did, did, done, done, done, done, action,
action, action. There must be action back of that criticism. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have it,
see? So, criticism is a sure indicator of an overt.
Now let’s take the milder form of it, which is explaining why it happened. The PC starts
explaining, I don’t let the PC explain very long without giving him a new One sub-something-or-
other on the What question. I give him a new What question to clean up.
PC starts explaining and says, “Well, actually, the truth of the matter was that I was on the
ferryboat. I hadn’t uh . . . uh . . . I hadn’t actually uh . . . meant to be on the ferryboat, you
understand, but I was coming down from the taxi rank, and I just saw the ferryboat there . . .”
I’m liable to cut him off at that moment, on whatever we were tallying about, and ask a little
more pinched-in-close What “What were you doing?” you know? Something like this -And
he says, “Well, oh-oh. Oh, that!” And it alerts him.
So you have these various indicators. They make a gradient. PC gives you a motivator; oh
well, that’s an absolute certain indicator, and you must pull the overt straight-away, just
convert the thing into an overt without any slightest . . .
Person says, “Well, my . . . just my mother beat me every day, just on and on and on. And
beat me every day and so forth.”
It’s just a lead-pipe cinch. “What have you done to your mother?” I mean, it might as well
appear-be printed-on the auditor form, you know? I mean, it’d be that inevitable.
Your nest one is criticism, criticism, criticism. Well, there’s a real overt back of this, and so
forth.
Now, we’re not going to dignify getting off other people’s withholds by even classifying it. An
auditor who would do that, oh, man. That’s very safe, but it’s so safe that they’re not
withholds. They’re not his withholds. What are you doing monkeying with somebody else’s
withholds? They’re not this PC’s actions. Perfectly safe to reveal other people’s withholds,
isn’t it? Or it might be, unless they find out about it.
Then your area of explanation. And then there is the actual withhold. Now, of course, the
actual withhold: the person says, “Well, I . . . I used to stand down OD the Battery and . . . uh
bung paving stones through the windshields of cars ‘ see? And you’ve got your tailor-made
What question standing right in front of your face, because it’s not “What about bunking
paving stones through windshields of cars on the Battery on July first, nineteen hundred and
sixty-two?” or something like this, you see? That’s not the question. The question is, “What
about damaging cars?” or something. But there’s your What question. It’s tailor-made because
it’s the withhold.
Now let’s drop downstairs a little bit, and we find the PC is explaining something. So we get
the What question out of the bulk of his explanation.
He’s saying, “Well, I actually . . . I actually would never . . . never really liked . . . liked uh . .
. liked my wife, and I really never liked her, and uh . . . so forth. And this was easy to
understand. I of course was . . . came home late and all that sort of thing, but she never kept
herself up, and she never really did anything for me around the house. And she never really
paid much atten . . .”
Actually, he hasn’t given a motivator, you know, he hasn’t given an overt. It’s just an
explanation of how it was all messy. And you could just cut him short on his explanation, get.your new What.
All right. So next indicator is the PC is being very critical about something or other. He’s being
very critical of you, the auditor. That’s a very special case. If he’s being critical of you, the
auditor, you have missed a withhold, and you better find out what it is. What should you have
found out about? “When did you think I was a fool?” Anything that you could possibly
mention that would throw a missed withhold into view-that would be the stage at which you
pulled this particular one. But it’s the criticism. You want to find out what has been done.
The missed withhold underlies all of these things, by the way. But you can find an actual
doingness at the point of criticism. He’s saying, “Well, natter, natter, natter, and actually I
always thought . . . always thought that he wore the wrong color ties. And uh . . . that was
why I didn’t like him,” or something of the sort, and so on. Well, he’s done something to that
person or done something to a person like that. So your What question is tailor-made out of
that.
And then there is: your fundamental fundamental is motivator. Man, red Rag! Let’s just find
out what he’s done to the source of that motivator or the type of beingness of that motivator.
Just overtly find out what he’s done. In other words, you’re getting off overts and so on.
Now, if you look at this as a scale, you will find out that the withhold is measured by the
degree of danger-the only reason I’m giving you this scale; I’m not talking about how you
ask What questions-the degree of danger the PC conceives to be present on the subject of
getting off the withhold.
All right. If the PC doesn’t think it’s very dangerous, they give it to you directly and straight. If
the PC thinks it’s a little bit dangerous, they explain around the fringes of where it might lie. If
the PC thinks it’s rather confoundedly dangerous-it’s getting just a little bit grim, maybe on
the jail borderline on that chain-the PC will criticize. See, criticism enters.
And if it is so dangerous that the PC believes-you understand I’m saying PC “believes”; I’m
not saying it’s factual-the PC is right up to the point where, with a jingle jangle the patrol
wagon arrives, the officers pick up the battering ram, they knock down the front door, they
come crashing in with the handcuffs and leg irons, you see, and drag him screaming off, towed
back of the Black Maria, you see? Something like this. And they can see this is going to happen
if that withhold is missing; they give you the motivator. They always give you a motivator.
Flat, flat, total motivator-a hundred percent.
Now, how do you use this? Well, it gives you the gradient scale and indexes of all cases. A
case is not as bad off as he is crazy. A case is not as bad off as he is aberrated. A case is not as
bad off as anything, except how dangerous he considers it would be if he revealed himself.
And so you have from the top to the bottom, all cases on that gradient, just like you have the
What questions and the degree of the withhold and the safety on that gradient, so you have all
cases on that gradient. And the person who will die before he will reveal himself is also on that
scale.
So you have them, from the case that you could audit to Clear in twenty-five hours. See, bang!
You sneeze, the person is Clear. Well, this person has not had any great idea that it’d be
dangerous to tell people things. That’s the index of that case.
All right. Now, the person who went 150 hours to a Routine-3 kind of Clear, well, that person
doesn’t have very much he considers is-be all right. Pretty easy.
Now we have the case that we went two hundred hours on only finding a goal and terminal.
Well, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, that case has got quite a little hatfull. There is a nice little hatfull of
stuff that if the individual revealed any part of that, he thinks, he believes, that hmmm it would
be . . . well, it’d be rough. It would be pretty rough. He’d probably lose his family, and he’d.lose this and that, you see?
And now you take the person who went five hundred hours with no goal and no terminal and
no gain, and that sort of thing. Now, we know darn well this person has [is] moving up into
the perimeter of the police breaking in the front door, if it were learned about this person, see?
And now we take the case that actually goes to the spinbin rather than reveal things. Well, man,
that’s in extremis. Because insanity is the last protest against punishment. See, “I cannot feel
your punishment. I do not even know about it. I’m not even a rational being. You’ve driven me
out of my mind.” You see, that’s a total motivator on the subject of punishment.
So, where we go. Then you’ve got your whole thing. It’s just length of time in auditing. Your
length of time in auditing is indexed by the danger the individual believes would be present if
he revealed certain things. And danger to reveal is the direct index of length of time in auditing.
There it is. Want to know how long it takes to clear somebody? Well, how dangerous does this
person consider it would be to reveal certain things.
Now, how could you cut down this length of time in auditing? Well, I’ve given you the
answer. Don’t pull safe withholds. Just move in and pull actual withholds. Don’t fool around
with it. And use Prepchecking. And you’ve got that, all right. Now, that gets this lifetime’s
danger out of the way.
And I’ve even given you a new type of line and a slight change in 3D Criss Cross that does not
permit the person to escape once you’ve got the item on the list. And the type of line is-the
line for 3D Criss Cross, of course is “What identity would it be unsafe for you to reveal?” or
some such wording. See? And they will blow into view. And “What identity would it be safe
for you to reveal?” of course, could be a relief line, which would just be nonsense. But it
would sort of balance the thing off and throw the other one into view; in other words, just be a
trick line.
In other words, you could drag these things out, and you know now what the PC is doing, so
it becomes relatively simple. That is what the PC is doing. While he is there sitting in front of
you, he would like to reveal himself. He would like to reveal this, and he would like to get out
of it, but he does not know how to get out of it. And the person is always hoping that
somebody will come along and give him a shot in the gluteus maximus with some magic fluid
by which he will not have to reveal a thing and become totally Clear.
And any time anybody has ever proposed that to me, why, I've had an instinct on the subject.
Now I know why! I should go back through the files and find out who’s proposed it, because
we would have an index of some of our roughest cases. It’d be the person who wants to be
cleared without revealing anything.
Now, the people who get spinny in processing, you must be falling right over something.
Well now, Prepchecking will get it for you. There is no contest about it. This is a very easy,
easy activity, because a person moves right up into it. But the basic Prepcheck question that
would get them all would of course be one of these “unsafe to reveal” questions.
Your Zero: “Have you ever done anything that might have been unsafe to mention?” See, that
would be your Zero. “Is there anything you’ve ever done that would be unsafe to you if you
told about it?” ”If you reveal certain things about yourself, would it be unsafe to you?” Some
such Zero, don’t you see? Doesn’t matter how it expresses to the PC. Then you get your What
off of what the PC said. Then you’d mine that down, you’d strip the whole bank. Interesting.
“Safe to reveal.” This is the index on it.
Now, you must figure it’s awful safe to show up with a MEST body, a meat body, you see;
and then you get the idea that it’s unsafe, so you begin to take it down. That must be what old.age is. That must be the only thing old age is. So take heart, girls.
Now, you just look at this, as the idea of apparency, appearances, disappearances, being there,
not being there, well, it all passes over into the field of fact. Offering the fact is dangerous.
Withholding the fact is apparently not dangerous. All it does is pull the person to pieces. That’s
the trick of the Body Builder. That is the basic trick of this universe. And the basic trick of this
universe is, if you withhold it, it won’t hurt you any. And of course, that is a stinking lie.
So they get everybody to withhold things. They invent codes of law and that sort of thing, and
these things are all supposed to get everybody to withhold a thing, and then the thetan gets to
packing up mass and occupying less space. And he occupies less space and less space, and he
can permeate less and less things, and here he goes. He’s got it made. Yeah. But who’s got it
made?
Of course, that is a game nobody wins. Scientology is the only game where everybody wins.
Now, there is your index of withholds. There is your. . . what they’re about. That is why your
PC won’t talk to you. That is why your PC reveals what he reveals. That’s why you
sometimes look very silly writing down, “Well, the PC has a withhold that the PC has a bent
toe,” and why, after you’ve prepchecked a bent toe for five or six sessions, there has been no
gain on the part of the PC.
You see? You see how this might work? Does this straighten out anything for you?
Audience: Hm-mm.
Now, you could use this principle, but if I give it to you, you’ll work it to death, instead of
using it as a Zero, you can flip over, and you mustn’t work this to death.
“Who would it have been dangerous to have revealed that to?” could be a version of the Who
question. But you get on some hot line, and the person is talking about having robbed every
restaurant in the entirety of New York-and he’s robbed every restaurant in New York
practically, and so forth, and he just keeps going on and on and you don’t seem to clean this
up-the W-ho that will clean it up is “Who wouldn’t it have been safe to have told about that,”
and “Who didn’t find out about it?”
And of course, he’d say, “Well, the restaurateurs”-and he’s been saying “the restaurateurs”
all this time and all of a sudden he looks at you, and he says, “Well, all right. The police.”
“All right. When did they fail to find out about it?” And we get the rest of the chain, and it
blows. Do you see that?
Now, there is your gradient of the value of the withhold to the PC. And I call very strictly to
your attention that I have said the PC “believes” it would be unsafe. And that is what is most
interesting: “believes” it would be unsafe.
And of course, these things . . . I think the crime you committed-I think they probably run
out of witnesses. I don’t think the government would spend a cent trying to dig up enough
witnesses, or even find the records, in order to prosecute you and so forth, particularly if it was
a real crime. The government is much more interested in minor crimes than real crimes.
The essence of the situation, however, is one little thing like that gets stacked up on other little
things, and something else gets stacked up on that, and the next thing you know a person
believes it’s very dangerous to put his nose out-of-doors. Can’t! Can’t go outside. And there’s
your “can’t go outside” thing. God-awful things are liable to happen to this person if they go
outside; liable to be recognized as the person who committed the murder, only they kind of
vaguely think maybe they have committed a murder, which is quite interesting ..You have very few backtrack things on this that are hot, but every case must have a few on it.
You suddenly say, “Oh man, I bet they’re still waiting for me. I bet they’re still looking for me
someplace or another,” and the PC is liable to have his hair almost stand on end for a moment
when he hits one of these things. And then he suddenly “Well, that’s nonsense. Been a long
time ago. Long, long time-I wonder if they are.”
But this equally applies to 3D Criss Cross and to Prepchecking, but is most salient in your use
of Prepchecking. And there is where you should use it. And I won’t get nasty or mean with
you, or anything. I will just forbid anybody to get off your withholds if I hear any more
session being spent on “I went out in the evening and looked at the sky and felt strange.” I
wouldn’t even try to make anything out of it, except that some PC had a hot area someplace and
had just thrown me a great big floppy, squishy red herring. And I don’t like red herring, so I
would let that one drop.
There are certain withholds you let go by. You just let them go by. You don’t do a thing with
them. And there are certain withholds that you hang to till grim death until they are all revealed,
and you’ll just have to learn which ones. And the index of it is, what is it the PC consider it
safe to reveal? What does the PC consider it unsafe to reveal? And that unravels the whole
problem for you.
Thank you