6108C04 SHSpec-34  Methodology of Auditing -- Not-doingness and Occlusion

     It's impossible to have judgment in auditing if one's TR's are out and
one is worried about making mistakes in application of the tech.

     On running brackets, a problem may be that the outer legs of the bracket
may not be real to him at first.  Reality on these legs may develop as he runs
the process.  This happens because of the dynamics.  As he is audited, the PC
gains reality on the other dynamics besides the first dynamic.  The PC's
ability to reach is directly reflected in his ability to conceive of someone else having an idea or action.  So, as you run the process, the command you started with can be too narrow and limiting, as the PC's ideas reach further, and the commands could need to be enlarged -- more legs could be added.  Each leg of the command stands as an individuated unit, without interchange among legs; each, in fact, could be run as an individual command.  In view of the fact
that it doesn't harm anybody to run an unreality as long as they are moving
towards a reality, it would be OK to run all legs of the bracket from the
outset.  Try to choose a bracket and command wordings all of which fall.
Remember that if you choose a command that restricts the PC, you limit his
gains.  Also, the PC will tend to look at the legs not being run as his
reality comes up.  He will have to withhold himself from those areas, tending
to put them on automatic.

     An auditing command can be broadened; it shouldn't be made more
particular and specific.  If in doubt, take the broadest form and run it from
the outset.  Running one which is too restricted can turn on somatics.  It's
legitimate to change the targets, flows, etc., but not the basic form.  Don't
change "how" to "when" or "could" to "would".  You can drop portions of the
command, too, as long as in so doing you are removing particularization.  When
the PC gets very free on flows, you can drop out the legs and go to the
simplicity of, e.g.  "Get the idea of (verb)."

     An aberration is located as a total imprisonment, a total individuation.
Auditing commands resolve the degree of imprisonment and individuation.  As
the degree lessens, you may lose TA on one leg of the process but now have it
elsewhere.  The TA ceases to move when the targets of the process are flat, so
the rule is, before leaving the command, check it out for all variations which
might produce new action.  Remember that the reactive mind is an idiot, so you
could miss something because of a wrong pronoun, or whatever.

     The biggest barrier in dissemination is not-doingness and mis-doingness.
There is an old unresolved philosophic question about the value of
not-doingness: "To do or not to do?" Which is better, the active or the
passive life?  If you do, you get into trouble; if you don't do, you get into
trouble.  There's confusion on either side.  For instance, LRH had a problem
as a writer:  whether to be super nasty if he was criticized or to be nice and
let himself be criticized, thus protecting his markets and friends.  There are
contradictory lessons in this; of course neither answer is right.  The missing
datum is that they are both overts, longest continuous overt is
not-doingness.  Have you ever noticed the randomity that can be produced by a
missing datum in a problem?  A false datum can cause some confusion, but look
at what a missing datum on the subject of the mind has done!  How about a
missing beingness?  This is a near-ultimate in not-doingness.  The ultimate,
of course, is forgetting.  You're not only doing nothing; you're not there to
do it and you've forgotten.  This really produces confusion.  A thetan never
ceases to try to have an effect on something, to put Axiom 10 in effect, no
matter how many trillenia have gone by.  You are trying to process someone who
is in the middle of 10,000 continuous overts of omission.  Doing something is
apparently the least damaging type of overt.  Thus withhold seems to be the
more therapeutic side of O/W.  It's his not-doingness which weighs on his
case.

     Doingness and not-doingness are not data of comparable magnitude.  Not-do
is enormously greater.  That's why people who stop doing, even if what they
have been doing is nasty, crash when they stop; that's also why men die before
women.  Underneath it all, a thetan knows he's important to life and knows
it's an overt not to participate.  The only greater overt is to forget.  This
is still an attempt to create an effect.  So there's a gradient scale of
effect creation:

          1. You do something to have an effect. (Axiom 10)

          2. You create an effect by not doing something.

          3. You create an effect by being absent.

          4. You create an effect by forgetting.

What degree of randomity could you produce by forgetting a whole lifetime?
Quite a bit.  And it's an overt; and the fellow realizes it's an overt.
That's the reason for whole track occlusion:  the overt of forgetting.  The
law behind all this is that the thetan never ceases to have an effect on those
targets he has chosen, and the only thing that could ever pry him loose from
those fixated effects is something like scientology.  He is imprisoned to the
degree that he is still trying to have a hopeless effect on something.  He is
his own jailer.  Forgetting it prevents it from ever being as-ised.

     If O/W can stall a case, how much more can it be stalled by not being
there, the withhold of self?  How much can it be stalled by a withhold from
self and being there, and from doingness and from the subject and from any
knowledge of the subject and from any communication with any beingness of the
subject, etc.?  That's why the more occluded a case is, the harder it is to
audit.  So you run cases on, "What wouldn't you mind forgetting?" This gets
off withholds.  Or, as a general pattern for a command, "What confusion
would/could forgettingness create?"

     We've looked on forgettingness as a sort of passive thing; we've looked
on not-doingness as the natural state of beingness.  Seeing them as overts
opens up new zones for processing.

