Fundamentals of Auditing (Jo'burg) 6102C14 3SAACC-14

Fundamentals of Auditing (Jo'burg) 6102C14 3SAACC-14

Сообщение auditor » 04 янв 2016, 15:50

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/

6102C14 3SAACC-14 Fundamentals of Auditing (Jo'burg)

The fundamentals of auditing are designed to handle fixations and changes
of attention. Attention is fixated or in a constant state of flux to the
degree that a person is creating and counter-creating. That's what a thetan's
attention gets fixed on: the creates or the counter-creates. All other things
(ruds, havingness processes, etc.) fall into line on that understanding. The
case is fixed on or fluctuating amongst the masses and energies it has
created. the things that put them out of existence or make them unreal are of
course created by the case. The person is at war with himself. That's why an
"attack" process works. It's a counter-create. Most cases, especially
downscale, are more dedicated to counter-creation than creation. The case is
in a state of unreality about the fact that he's doing it (mocking up things
on which he is then fixing his attention). Sometimes a person may know he's
doing it or not doing it. But often thetans don't know that they are creating
what they are fighting. So you could have a level of processing of doingness
on creating, e.g. "What wouldn't you mind creating / would you rather not
create?"

We're dealing strongly with havingness these days, with success. The
axiom of aberration is, "All doingness harms self." Doingness processes
address this fact. You could ask, "What liability would there be to doing
something?" or "What could you do which wouldn't be harmful to you?" This
could fall flat because the person is doing so many more complicated things
that he has to come up to these basics. This process is too high for most
cases.

Beingness processes are relatively easy to run. You could run an engram
with, "What, in that incident would you be willing to be?" The PC must have
the ability to be something before this would be a workable process. Some
people can't be anything, so you have to test for this with, "Look around here
and find something you could be."

You could develop the whole rationale of processing at the level of
beingness or doingness or havingness, though they must eventually merge; all
three are needed.

If a PC doesn't move just with elementary rudiments: no TA; no change of
case, it's probable that the PC is withholding some big recent overt. Or the
PC may have some unusual or secret goal not imparted to the auditor, or the
trouble may be a big PTP. So in going over a case on the basis of rudiments,
one takes it easy until one finds out that the havingness scale, as you have
been taught to use it, doesn't move the TA. Why ask for trouble before you've
got it? You go over the ruds pretty well -- no wild drops, go on in search of
the prehav level, find where the PC lives, get one of his principal goals
aligned, convert it into a terminal which drops as well as the goal dropped,
assess the prehav scale with that terminal, then run anything that fits that
level. The commands are, "What was _______ ?" for positive and, "What _______
failed?" for negative. For a terminal it's, e.g., "What (terminal) was
_______ ?" and "What (terminal) failed to _______ ?" or "What (terminal) was
not?" These are the all-bracket commands. They could be repeated for each
level. You could run 15 brackets against the prehav scale "When has
(terminal)(action)(terminal)?" There are possibilities of 32-way brackets, but
five-way is enough.

[More details on prehav running]

If a PC isn't interested in the process, the ruds are out, as it's an
interesting process. So beat the ruds to death. If you can't solve it with
ruds, run CCH's. The PC needs this when he can't control attention and your
command isn't reaching him, a no-effect case on whom no command has anything
to do with him, etc.: totally on automatic, etc. So use CCH's to give them an
example that control and duplication can exist, and to increase their
alertness, havingness, and effectiveness. Ten to twenty-five hours of CCH's
must be done, with good auditor control and presence. If the auditor can't
impinge on the PC, however, and has no auditor presence, even CCH's won't
work, since they depend on impingement. LRH impinges more than most auditors
because of his certainty that something will happen and his not being scared
to confront the PC. To LRH, it's a personal affront if the PC isn't moving.
He can even get bad research results because even when using a process that
shouldn't work, his postulate that the case should change and his wanting to
do something for the PC will cause the process to work. So he depends on HGC
results, etc., to test processes. Just asking the PC questions can do a
tremendous amount for the PC. Don't underestimate what auditor presence,
confidence, and interest can do.

CCH's depend on auditor presence more than any other process. Maybe 6
percent won't get gains, because of needing CCH's. The rest have ruds out, if
they don't win on goals and prehav.

[More data on goals and prehav running]

The havingness processes are arranged in order of their frequency of
effectiveness. A command that works on cases that have relatively
uncontrolled banks and can't run engrams is, "Where is _______ ?" Frequently a
person with low havingness is in a universe of objects that are mad at him,
etc. As you run, "What is the emotion of that (object)?", the object goes
downscale and the PC cuts in across the bottom and goes upscale. When he's
upscale about the object, the process is flat. This havingness process can
change, when emotion disappears out of the physical universe, to "What is the
condition of that (object)?" If the havingness process stops loosening the
needle, first check to see if there is an ARCB about the command, and then, if
not, find a new havingness process.

Other processes: are TR-10: "Notice that (indicated object). What aren't
you putting into it?" A good outside process is, "What is the condition of
that person?"

When you get a rise on a can squeeze, the PC may have heavy withholds,
maybe inverted interest, and won't lie-check. Perhaps the havingness test
would be how much less does the needle rise in this case.

If the case ARCB's all the time, you can run, "Who would I have to be to
audit you?"

The prehav scale running runs subjective havingness; the hav processes
run objective havingness. The objective havingness determines his havingness
of the physical universe; the prehav scale determines his havingness of the
subjective universe. You only run enough objective havingness to keep the PC
in PT and loosen his needle.
Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
auditor
 
Сообщений: 672
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original LECTIONS, TAPES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 2

cron