     6206C28 SHSpec-167  Question and Answer Period

     There is a possibility that a person with a nice clean "free needle" is
at a mockery level where the needle appears clean, but the case is really
nowhere.  This case will rise up into trouble.  Even if a starting PC wasn't
at a mockery level, you would still want to run some model session and
havingness sessions before going into 3GA, so that he would get an idea of
what auditing was.  The anxiety factor will otherwise get in the way.  You
could run ruds and havingness, then give him a prepcheck session, even if it
were only grooved in the direction of goals.  Then you could go on to his
goals list.  Just be sure it is not the "dead thetan" case, which will blow up
in your face if you do 3GA.

     Somebody invented a method for doing CCH's where they started asking,
"Did you notice that (physical change)?" all the time.  It got to be quite a
method!  It is an evaluation.  The whole point of CCH's is to get the guy to
look.  If he looks, he will exteriorize from that particular somatic.  This is
a deft, delicate action the auditor is undertaking, not a sledgehammer
procedure or a rote activity.  Pcs will put the process on automatic and go
out of session, running like a wound-up doll, unless you stay in 2WC with
them.  In CCH's, the auditor is only interested in physical originations on
the part of the PC because CCH's are physical, not mental processes.  You
count on the fact that he has originated something.  At that point, if you can
bring him to observe as a live being, he will get better and better.
But if you tell him he has got to observe, he won't.  He will feel bludgeoned
and criticized.  The old drill that you use is "Fishing a Cognition".  [This
is called "Training 13".  See HCOB 11Jun57 Training and CCH Processes"
pp.16-17.] If you don't succeed, OK.  You didn't succeed.  An auditor, in his
desire to make somebody well, often pushes the PC's teeth down his throat.  He
gets anxious to have a beneficial effect and starts pressing.  When he does
this, he drives the PC out of session by adding a note of urgency or
impatience.  This puts the PC's attention on the auditor.

     What if the PC is responding to someone else's voice, and the meter is
responding to hearing another session in progress?  In this case, the
beginning ruds must be out.  Your PC is not in session with you if he reads on
a word mentioned by someone else in the vicinity.  To handle it, you have to
get the PC in session.  This is best done by ending that "session", taking a
short break, and restarting, making sure you get the ruds in.

     Poor in-sessionness used to show up as super-light overts gotten off on
sec checks, like "I thought of stealing a paper clip." That is symptomatic of
no confidence, wobbly model session, and ruds not gotten in, but session
started over out-ruds.  You have to learn to be so smooth and so predictable
that the PC would never think of doing anything else but respond to you and
read on your meter.

     When you call a PC's attention to a physical origination by asking,
"What's happening?", and the PC says, "Oh, nothing," you should just
acknowledge and go on.  Then, the next time you have him in a prepcheck
session, you get off "suppression".  You can remedy this situation.  The PC is
giving you a social response.  He may feel that you are critical and so is
making nothing of his reaction.  One approach is to vary the question.  E.g.
one could ask, "How are you doing?" instead.

     A compulsive outflow in itself is not dangerous, unless it runs the PC's
havingness 'way down.  You want to use TR-4, since not all his answer is
relevant.  You have probably slipped up earlier, by not acknowledging when he
did answer, in the early part of the outflow.  You now have to use TR-4.  Get
in, understand, acknowledge, and return him to the session.  A good method of
handling that is to say, "When did that occur to you in this session?" He
answers, you acknowledge, and you go back to the process.  When a PC is
properly acknowledged, he has found out that he has reached you and he will
stop talking.  So if you pick his hand up and put it on your shoulder as he
runs on, he will shut up!  He has reached you!  You are not trying to reach
the PC; you are trying to convince the PC that he has reached you.  You could
probably stop a war if you could convince the enemy that he has reached you.
War is saying, "You can't reach us, but we are gonna reach you!" All war
propaganda says this, which only tends to just keep things going.

     If the PC answers the auditing question and you acknowledge, and the PC
goes further than that, you should consider that the PC has originated.  If
the PC is originating, he has an anxiety about reaching you.  So all you have
to do is to cure the anxiety, and there you are.

     There is a havingness process based on this principle that you can use
with CCH's.  It is quite simple: repetitive "Touch my (non-charged body
part)." Every now and then, the auditor will get "love" turning on in the PC.
You have to run this out, since you want to get rid of its misemotional
connotations.  You would run this early in auditing and once per session.  It
is a good way to handle male-female anxiety.  You could use this process for
when CCH's go roughly.  Some auditors have pcs going out of session when
running CCH's.  This is a mark of rough auditing.  A nice, easy CCH run
wouldn't need any rudiments, but if rudiments do go out in CCH's, you are up a
creek because ruds violate the physical-process idea of CCH's.  So this
CCH-havingness process would be a way of handling this situation.  It would
supplant all the anxiety about doing model session while doing CCH's.  It is a
way of getting the PC to find the auditor.  This is an ARC havingness
process.  Any other havingness would be risky.  It might not be the PC's
havingness process.

     Don't waste time in auditing.  "There is no particular amount of courtesy
in the reactive mind.  When I do auditing, I do the essentials and not more
than the essentials.  I get the job done." You do want the PC in a state where
he will read on the meter.  "My pcs don't have time to have ruds go out." The
time to put in mid-ruds is when the goals stop reading at all on nulling.  Say
you call them each three times and nothing reads.  That is when to rut in
mid-ruds.  If you make the PC wrong for talking by putting mid-ruds in, you
are misusing mid-ruds and driving him out of session.  You are making him lose
interest and ARC breaking him.  Then the meter won't read well.

     The current test of completeness of a list, in listing goals, is no TA
action on listing.  The tone arm has a certain tendency to drift.  If the PC
were to sit there with his hands on the cans and nothing else going on, in an
hour the TA would drift, say, from 2.75 to 3.0.  Lots of TA motion is .75
divisions in 20 minutes.  A little TA motion is .25 divisions in 20 minutes.
None = normal drift if nothing were happening.

