6201C30 SHSpec-106  In-Sessionness

     Assessing isn't to find something to run; it's running the case.

     Rudiments must be kept in throughout the session, not just used to get
the PC in session.  End rudiments are there to keep the session from
perpetuating itself or hanging up.  Beginning rudiments are to get the PC out
of the physical universe, into session and his own universe, not still coping
with his life outside of session.  If he has to put a lot of attention on the
auditor, he is still in cope, in having to handle another human being -- a
social situation, not a session.

     An auditor who does a poor job of getting rudiments in puts the PC into
the physical universe, coping with the auditor.  A PC in session should be
able to be in a state of no-responsibility for the physical universe around
him during the session.  That is the reason you can plumb the bank.  The less
responsible you make the PC for the physical environment and the auditor and
the auditing, the more no-responsible the PC is for those things.  That sounds
peculiar, because it is also the state of an hypnotic trance, but a PC in
session is not in an hypnotic trance.  The difference is interesting.  In an
hypnotic trance, it is demonstrated conclusively that he has no control over
anything; the only person with any control is the hypnotist.  Hypnotism is a
total overwhelm, devoted directly to the physical universe (the PC's body).
That has little in common with a PC's attitude in session.  It was one of the
few states Man could induce on Man, along with:  cured, dead, injured, etc.
It was the only one by which he could approach the spiritual and the
infinite.

     People can misinterpret this when it comes to getting pcs in session.
Their past track in dealing with these other states can color their approach
to pcs.  There are also the social states, which have nothing much to do with
auditing; it is no sin to play on that.  But auditors can get confused about
what in-sessionness is.  What is the beingness of a PC?  It is, of course,
"Willing to talk to the auditor and interested in own case".

     This is so simple that auditors can try to put additive states in on top
of it.  Using inval and eval, they can turn the session into an hypnotic
trance session by overwhelming the PC.  It can't happen easily; it takes some
doing, but it could happen.

     What you want is just someone who is no longer fixated on the physical
universe or in a social state with the auditor.  But if you violate the
Auditor's Code, he will still have the physical universe, because he will have
a person, not an auditor, to deal with.  He will be too concerned with what
the auditor might think, what the auditor is doing, etc.  That is normal
enough, to a degree, early in auditing.  So the first auditing a person has
should be the best, because that is when he is most distrustful.  You don't
want him to keep a distrustful attitude towards an auditor.

     A PC in session can look at his own universe; the auditor has to get him
to look.  It's interesting that he is in such a state of no-responsibility for
the physical universe, since that is actually the state he has been in since
the beginning of track.  It is his no-responsibility for the physical universe
that makes it necessary for him to cope with it and be unsafe with it.  This
is a common denominator of bank.  At the most aberrated spots on the back
track, the person is 100% irresponsible for the lot.  So he goes into this
state rather easily.

     We are more interested in the backtrack than in his present time physical
universe.  The reason why we are trying to detach him from the PT physical
universe is so that we can put him into communication with the past-time
physical universe.  If he stays "stuck in present time", he is in a state of
super-cope.  The mind, to such a person, is already an area of danger, because
his time track is fraught with insecurity even greater than the insecurity of
FT.  But he is actually not stuck in PT; he is stuck on the back track,
believing that it is present time.

     So you must get beginning ruds in much better with a new PC or a green
PC.  Likewise, if auditing gets into a grind, tear into the ruds.  Don't just
check them to see if they are in.  Use them to audit the case.  Don't just get
them in for the session we are running.  Get them in for all his past
sessions, particularly the first.

     How many ruds processes should you use?  Normally, you can just flick the
withholds off of any ruds question to get the PC into session.  But the
available processes for getting ruds in are nearly countless.  Any valid
communication process, old problems processes, withhold processes: there are
lots of them.  You must recognize what rudiments are.  They are reasons why he
might not be in session.  If you want to straighten him out on the subject of
auditing, get his ruds in, starting with his first session.  Having located
the first session, you could run, "What didn't that auditor know?" and "What
didn't you know about the environment?"

     If the PC has been an auditor, you can run out his first PC with, "What
didn't that PC know about you?" You could get all ruds in on every session he
has ever had, including end rudiments.  Only the first session or two and a
few others will have any importance.  The best method to do this would be a
Form 6 Sec Check [See HCOPL 7Jul61 "Processing Sec Check".  This is intended
for students who have done a fair amount of auditing.]

     So if a PC behaved peculiarly as a PC; if he was hard to get in session,
etc., look for a past bum session and get all ruds in for the first session
he'd had and given.  You could lock-scan him to find where the PC is stuck.
Lock-scanning is very useful for that.  Then you can get ruds in wherever he
is parked, [until] he takes no time to get from the first session to PT.  You
could do this over and over.  It shouldn't take more than four or five hours.
A failure to do something like this wastes auditing time because of
out-of-sessionness.

     Out-of-sessionness could arrive from another quarter.  Either you didn't
prepare the PC for assessment, or ruds are out, or there was at least one bad
session which has been restimulated, so that earlier auditing has to be
cleaned up to get later auditing accomplished.  The PC's interest may be in
later incidents, but the trouble comes from earlier.  This has been the
uniform mistake all down the track: looking at the wrong end of the chain.
The PC's interest is in the last occurrence and his aberration is in the first
occurrence.

     The things a person can't remember are the things he has taken no
responsibility for.  You can get an inversion where the PC has no
responsibility for things but has apparent full memory for them.  Actually, it
is a dub-in.  Dub-in is an effort to take responsibility for something the PC
has no responsibility for.  This would be a barrier to an auditor unless he
could detect something under it.  For that, you can use your E-meter, which
will detect no-responsibility areas that the PC cannot remember.

     When LRH audits a PC, he makes sure that the PC is interested in finding
out about the unknown areas of his past; that he gets some familiarity with
his own thinkingness; that he gets some realization that he has had some
causation over his actions in life.

     One thing looms large over all technicalities: the state of being in
session.  The most gross auditing error there is, is not to get and keep a PC
in session.  One can fail to recognize when the PC isn't in session, or one
can hope in-sessionness will materialize.  It never materializes.  It is not
an accident or something you can put on automatic.  You put a PC in session or
you take advantage of a PC's in-sessionness when it occurs.

     The main thing that you don't notice is that the PC goes out of session
in the middle of session.  You have to devote some time to putting ruds in
when they are out during the session.  This is very necessary when doing 3D
Criss Cross.  You are handling charged items.  The PC can hit one, lack
confidence in his ability to handle it, and ARC break with the auditor or
something; or they invalidate the situation; or they withhold something.  The
auditor has to keep these things picked up.  But the PC isn't telling you what
is wrong with his case when he tells you one of these things.  He is telling
you what has just blown.  That is why it is an error to Q and A with what the
PC gives you in middle ruds.  If you do take it up, you will put the PC out of
session.

     One way to get ruds in in mid-session is to find what flow the PC has on
automatic.  It is that flow that causes the others to materialize.  When you
get that one cleaned up, the ruds will stay in better because you know what
the trigger is.  All you have to know is which flow is sticky, which flow has
his attention.

