6110C05 SHSpec-63  Sec Checking -- Types of Withhold

     Punishment following the revelation of withholds is a mechanism of older
groups by which they sought to enforce their mores.  It is a bad mechanism,
since it encourages withholding.

     If you, the auditor, are worried about your own withholds or trying to
present an image of sinlessness because you're a scientologist, you'll Q and A
at times with the PC's withholds and start mutual avoidance of certain
subjects.  The auditor must have the courage to ask the sec check questions,
no matter how crude and nasty it seems to do so.  It's rough enough if your
withholds are off.  If they aren't, you'll back off the subject altogether.
Auditors, instructors, etc., can back off from being sec checked because of
fear of loss of reputation or image.  They'll then slack off sec checking
other people.  If you find someone who is ducking being sec checked, he will
also duck sec checking.  But it is not true that to be a good auditor you must
never have done anything wrong!  If you let yourself take that viewpoint, you
are surrendering to an ought-to-be, which action would slow the progress of
scientology by putting every good auditor in lousy case shape, along with
every good exec.

     The mechanism by which Man has been governed had in it the idea that Man
was evil and therefore has to be held in line by evil practices.  They never
noticed that the evil in the world stemmed from holding men in line.  A
society without ARC is a society which will inevitably have crime.  Man is
good, but only to the degree that he is in ARC with existence.  The primary
mechanism someone uses who is out of ARC with existence yet trying to survive,
is to withhold.  Society is forced apart to the degree that people are made
guilty.  To prevent murder, don't hang murderers; make it unnecessary for
people to resign from the human race.  People get grievances about things.
There's no agency in society to remedy the grievance, and they end up
committing desperate overts.

     The unintentional withhold is something that occurs when the person is
not able to tell anybody, though he's willing to.  This could be because no
one is there, or no one is listening.  It happens in insane asylums all the
time.  You get this peculiar kind of withhold which you mustn't overlook in
sec checking.

     Then there is a kind of withhold where the PC knew that he was
withholding because he'd be punished if others knew.  Or there's a withhold
which would damage his beingness or reputation, not necessarily a doingness
that's withheld.  It could be a beingness.

     A group is based on communication.  Withholds all add up to cut
communication, so it falls apart to the degree that there is no
communication.  Up to a point, withholds appear to cohere a group.

     A sec check is dedicated to the restoration of communication.  If comm
were restored totally in any past group, the PC will no longer be hung in that
group.  He will not be parked on the track, so he will be more able to be a
part of his present group.

     The group you are most concerned with in auditing isn't the group called
scientology; it's the little group which is the session.  When the individual
is too individuated, end develops an unintentional withhold in that group, or
the auditor conducts himself in such a way as to bring about punishment
because of a withhold or crime, or demands specious reactions from the PC, the
auditor has shot the session group.  Auditing is a third dynamic activity.
For the session to be a good group, you've got to get all three kinds of
withholds off:

          1. Unintentional withholds.  When no one will listen to the PC.
             Hence the process, "What weren't you able to tell an auditor?"

          2. Reputational withholds: a defense of one's beingness.
             E.g. one's family came from the wrong side of the tracks.

          3. Withholds for fear of punishment.

     The only thing that can deteriorate a graph is ARC breaks.  The basis of
an ARC break is being made to have an unintentional withhold from that
immediate group.  That's more serious, evidently, than an intentional
withhold, as far as session results go.

     Then there's the enforced withhold on the basis of improved state.
Someone who is pretending to audit gets no result but seeks to convince the PC
that he's much better.  Here, the PC thinks he'd better not say otherwise.
Then you've got the withhold of protecting beingness.  This is the
reputational withhold.  It's pretty rare on this basis.  But you can also have the propitiative PC who tells the auditor it's all fine because he doesn't want to make the auditor feel bad, when actually, he still has his headache, or whatever.

     Rudiments are aimed at handling these withholds.  The ARC break questions
ask for unintentional withholds: "What couldn't you tell an auditor?" and
"What didn't an auditor do?" The latter question is going after an auditor in
a games condition.  Unintentional withhold and games condition questions go
together.

     Compartmenting a question: You take the words, get the charge off them,
you get reads off any phrases in it, then if it still reads, the read is on
the question.

     Never leave a question still reading.  It will throw the PC out of
session immediately.  You can leave it for the next session, but tell the PC
that that's what you are doing.  Another important point is to select a sec
check relevant to the PC's activities.  Sec check against the reality of the
PC, taking into account the moral codes by which he lives.  Never treat sec
checking as a repetitive process.  It's for getting off withholds, so vary the
question and be real.  Be inquisitive, nosey, and imaginative.

     There's an overt act consisting of enforcing the mores of a group to make
others withhold.  That's the make-guilty action which also acts as a
withhold.  E.g. a girl says, "No, I never raped anybody; I've been raped," and
the question keeps reading.  Don't Q and A by auditing out the rape; get the
overt, which is gotten by, "Whom have you made guilty of rape?" You'll find
the make-guilties lie on an actual "done" anyway, so always come back to the
original question, with the same wording as you first used.  If a PC thinks a
question is insulting, he is telling you that he has done the thing.

