6107C14 SHSpec-29 Checking Ruds and Withholds To clear somebody at this time, he must be in a body, just so he can be picked up and audited. A thetan who has just dropped a body has to get another one before we can clear him. When columns A, B, C, and D consistently register low after processing, you know the PC hasn't found the auditor. This is due either to an auditor who doesn't impinge, or a PC who can't tolerate being effect or control. A case that hangs fire has an automatic not-is, which can wipe out the needle read. He'll tell you all sorts of overts on a sec check but not consider them bad. He doesn't think it's real. He knows about it, but it's all not-ised. Don't get outraged with the auditor who missed it. He didn't really miss it. All the time you are checking the PC over, you ask about the auditing, so as to unearth the moment of not-is. You'll make it safe by putting it on a via, e.g. "Have you ever thought it wouldn't hold up your case if you didn't tell your auditor?" "Did you ever have objections to the auditing room and just fail to mention it?" "Is there any time in your life when you felt completely beyond help?" "Did you ever tell your auditor?" These are tricky questions, but you're counting on the fact that, during that fifty hours, something did get brought to view that can be re-examined when spotted. It requires a bit of cleverness to spot it. There's no sense in trying this technique before he's has any auditing; the ground hasn't been plowed yet. He's been like this all his life and thinks it's normal. The meter registers on disagreement and he doesn't have any yet. (In fact, you can use "disagreement" as a broad-sweep ruds question when nothing else will register.) The "This is normal" is in Dianetics, the Evolution of a Science, as the "Everyone knows..." The PC really knows it's not normal, but the valence he's in considers it's OK. You could ask, "What is life really like?" to find out what "normal"is to him. When we say "It's below his level of reality," we mean he has some specialized compartmented values of existence, which really have nothing to do with existence. His level of reality has nothing to do with other people. This is his reality, so it doesn't register when you ask for differences. For instance, you ask for critical thoughts; he says "No", and it doesn't register because it's all justified that he natters continually. The disagreement is in total agreement with his reality. They have everything identified with everything, so there is nosense in disagreement. The complexity of disagreement with everything is such that the disagreement is just the way things should be. Thus there is no read. An automatic not-is is an automatic disagree. You have to be clever to unveil it all. The PC has opted out of life because it was too much, but he knows he shouldn't have. He will perhaps tell you that he has led a calm, orderly life; that nothing much has happened. Actually, he just hopes he has no past. How do you get him back into the mainstream of life? The meanest thing you can do is to ask him, "Have you ever left anyplace?" He answers. Then you hit him with, "Why?" Now you are asking for the points of departure from the main highway. You are asking, "What didn't you confront that you feel you should have confronted?" Now the meter gets active. It can be summed up in this way, "Did you ever have anybody demand that you put your attention on something?" "Have you ever had anybody tell you that you're wrong not to have had your attention on something?" That's the basic trick. This comes up on problems. The basic trick of life: making people confront is the overt and having to confront is the motivator. All deaths, and the whole mechanism of death, comes from unwillingness to confront. So when people leave and feel they shouldn't have left, it is because there was something there that was too threatening and it keyed in death, so they did a Q and A on death and opted out of life. They were running a no-confront on people, giving people things that couldn't be confronted. If you do that, you get the idea that you can't confront. After you get that idea, you can only leave. And when you can't even leave any more, all you can do is to go nuts. When you get the why of leaving, you can ask if that's been a problem to him at any other time. You could get his PTP that way. You can ask, "Have you ever thought of blowing session?" "Why?" What you've done here is to walk around, cleverly using all the buttons that he is using to lie there quietly unchanged. The buttons of the prehav scale can be used in this line, e.g. "prevent", which has to do with problems. The surprise element is effective in all this, so it shouldn't be rote. The PC must realize that he is being interrogated by an intelligence. Control is associated with intelligence. The labor - management situation stems from suspiciousness of cleverness. When people are un-clever, they are easily overwhelmed by cleverness. They can protest it with a strike. Labor's basic yap is against the intelligence of management, but management is never bright enough to use intelligence as a counter-weapon. Intelligence is an altitude factor. This applies very strongly in sec checking. You won't get anywhere operating as a robot. Similarly with ruds. If you know there is something wrong because the PC hasn't responded to the correct processes, then there has got to be something wrong with rudiments. If you can't get the PC to respond well, it's not that he is trying to hide from you consciously. He is being a dead body up in a gully covered with leaves, and you've got to work around cleverly to communicate with him so he can be gotten back into life. The trouble is that he thinks he is just lying there quietly, and he isn't. He is shooting guns and making all kinds of fuss. On the other hand, you don't want to get so helpful that he comes to rely on you totally and never looks.