FreeZone America


Chapter Three:
Moving Upwards


Now what about all the other tools of the auditor? What about Ruds, Prepchecks, L&N, D/L, Rehab? What about the hallowed Grades?

What about the "standard" set of rundowns considered indispensable by some, like the PTS RD, Drug RD and Int RD, not to mention "standard" case assessment lists such as C/S 53 and Green Form? What about all of those?

One doesn't need most of them. Mind you, Ron didn't devise them for the auditee but for auditors in training. So once one can audit expertly one can do without those crutches.

This is what he says: "Well, you know the fundamentals ... If you were capable of applying the axioms of scientology immediately to the problem of another fellow human being, you theoretically could dream up enough processes to satisfy adequately every single condition which you would meet. But it has been found by experience that auditors do not do this. So we have codified processes." (From "The Fundamentals of Auditing", a tape of January 11, 1955.)

So let's keep it simple. All auditing tools fall into two distictly different categories: number one is "basic tools", number two is "combinations of tools" or "packaged tools".

Basic tools are those that can't be reduced to anything simpler. They are: 2WC, repetitive recall, recall by chain, narrative style, repeater technique, and "single item techniques" (such as assessment, L&N, D/L) in combination with "indication of a correct item", i.e. strong TR­2 (LK2/ch. 4).

Packaged tools: All rundowns consist of combinations of basic tools, put together for certain purposes. Ron Hubbard did that. Senior auditors in the Church of Scientology (such as David Mayo) did that.

Postulate Auditing is such a package. I did that.

Every auditor has the right to put together a rundown from basic tools for a certain purpose. Nothing wrong with being creative.

"For God's sake, get busy and build a better bridge!" ­ remember that line? It's the last one in the book "Dianetics".

Rudiments are packages as well. Look at the complexity of an ARCX handling, for example! It contains assessment, 2WC, recall by chain, even narrative (when a large secondary is contacted).

Each rudiment is a specific mixture of basic tools and has to be run accordingly. (There lies the art of running ruds.)

So what tools should one use, and when?

As this book is about how I work, I'm going to give a personal answer to the question: basic tools I use fully and extensively. It would be impossible to audit without them. In terms of techniques, they are the very stuff auditing consists of.

Use good TRs and those basic tools, and you can audit anything.

Packaged tools I use sparingly only. Rudiments and prepchecks, yes. Grades, no. No "standard" rundowns, either. Repair lists, never. (And why should one, anyway? Just ask the auditee! He knows what's wrong. Good 2WC replaces repair lists anytime.)

So what do I do? I ask the auditee what he wants handled, and that I handle. Pretty much by means of basic tools only.

When several areas of attention need handling, I put them in a sequence and handle them one by one. Biggest reading one first. And it's basic tools all the way.

As most of these basic tools are combined in Postulate Auditing, I use Postulate Auditing nearly all the time. Handles anything: drugs, PTSness, out­ Int, high TA.

It's always the same routine: 2WC, get a reading item, repetitive recall, lockscan to a basic, narrative on the basic, erasure with postulate off, repeater technique on the postulate.

Life­changing cognitions ensue.

At certain times Postulate Auditing is not useful. This is when the auditee gives you no AESP as an item, but a terminal or activity he feels unhappy with. Father, mother, the taxman, cats, dogs, cars, buildings, countries are terminals. Going to work, swimming, doing the laundry are activities.

Usually an AESP is mentioned in context with the terminal or activity, if only as general an attitude as "I don't like him". In which case you could go right into the Postulate Auditing sequence. However, occasionally an auditee will mention a reading terminal and complain about him, yet his complaints may not read.

So although he voices AESPs in connection with that terminal, they don't read. Situation: no reading AESP but a reading terminal.

This is the moment when one should use rudiments or the prepcheck.

Rudiments Are Real Auditing!

Rudiments are a very direct action, like pointing at something with your finger. The prepcheck, by contrast, has a more sweeping quality. Rudiments require good conceptual understanding from both auditee and auditor, as well they require excellent session control from the auditor. The prepcheck is much easier on both of them.

Use what you or the auditee feel most comfortable with. Both serve to poke about in an area and find useful items, in particular postulates.

With experienced auditees I don't go through the ruds one by one but assess them.

Supposing the item was "school teachers" it would go like this: "Regarding school teachers, do you have an ARCX ­ a problem ­ a mw/h ­ an overt ­ feel invalidated ­ evaluated?" Note all reads. Take the biggest one up first, audit that rud to F/N. And then re­assess! Don't go back to the reads from the first assessment but re­assess. By removing one lump of charge from that area you have destabilized it. It will re­assemble differently from before.

Therefore: a new assessment each time, till all ruds F/N.

Each rudiment is handled by the gradient approach pointed out earlier: 2WC, repetitive recall, lock scan, narrative (till the postulate pops up). However, they aren't all audited the same way. There are distinct differences. (See as well LK2/ch. 4.3.)

ARCXs are 2WC'ed until one has understood what happened, only then are they assessed. With any good luck they key out on the correct indication of the charge and F/N. When they don't you'd normally go earlier similar ­ and risk running down an endless chain! Because what part of the earlier ARCX is being compared to the ARCX at hand? It could be anything!

It's much better to get the postulate in the ARCX with a brief 2WC after correctly indicating the charge. "At the moment your affinity was refused, what did you feel like then?" ­ "Well ... I felt like a lonesome child, really." ­ Blowdown on the meter.
That's the valence he is in! "A lonesome child"! Now you've found an item you can safely and successfully work with. First repetitive recall, then some lock scanning down to the basic, narrative on the basic, postulate, F/N, repeater tech on the postulate.

Problems: Usually the auditee will give you a surface difficulty as the first answer. You have to find the postulate / counter­postulate structure behind it. That's the 2WC part. This may take quite some time, mind you! And it's well worth investing some time here, because without an item you can't do any sensible auditing.

Example: "I hate my job", says the auditee. Sounds like the answer to an ARCX but it read as a problem. (This is presupposing that the auditee knows what you are talking about when you say "problem".) So you 2WC this. He thinks people make life difficult for him at work. More 2WC. He wants to leave but can't leave. Fear of unemployment. We are getting closer! More 2WC. Finally: "Well, without work I'd be as good as dead!" BD on the meter.

That's the attitude that ties him down and makes it impossible for him to choose freely! Now that you've got an item you can do your gradient approach of repetitive recall ("Just give me some examples of when you felt as good as dead!"), lock scanning to basic, narrative of the basic to postulate and F/N, repeater tech on the postulate.

Overts and missed withholds: They are run the same way. (You can't talk about one without mentioning the other.)

So let's say mw/h read. The charge is on someone having missed the withold, thereby restimulating it; the actual handling is different, though: first you handle the w/h (which usually takes you down to the overt behind it), then you handle when it was missed, i.e. you discharge all the encounters when people acted in a strange way towards the person and he felt found out.

Again you start out with 2WC to get into the first part. This brings to light what wasn't said and what the actual overt behind it is. There is no system. Just explore each read to get the full picture. Find time, place, circumstances, sequence of event, who was there, etc., etc. Says the auditor: "Now that we know everything about your sexually molesting your teenage daughter, let me refer back to the auditing question and ask you: where in all that is the actual missed withhold?"

You see, the charge the auditee got off so far was on the moral side of things. It was on him knowing that what he did was forbidden. Yet he was brave and managed to tell you. Lots of reads and TAA. He went through the incident three or four times to get all details. But where is the missed withhold? That's what read, after all, and he hasn't answered up to it yet.

So you ask him: "We know now what you
did. But what is it you withheld?" If he felt alright about it there wouldn't be any charge. So there must be something beyond the circumstantial and moralistic stuff that bothers him, a transgression against his own code of honor, a rock bottom Ser Fac, and it must have the form of a w/h. Because that's what read.

His answer: "I didn't know how to love her!" He breaks down on this, sobs, tears. Now we know what it's all about! We have discovered the rightness beneath all that wrongness. He loved his daughter, couldn't express his love, felt rejected. It's a withhold of love. He wanted to give love and withheld it. Until the tension erupted and was dramatized as sexual molestation. He managed to bury the charge for thirty years (that's the withhold), now it was restimulated for some reason or other (that's how it was missed).

How it was missed and who missed it isn't really important. That's just a chain of ARCxs on the basis of his fear of having been found out. To change that person's attitude it is much more important to detect the real reason for his misbehaviour: the postulate. This is easy, because now that you have found a decent item you are once again on the main line of your gradient approach: repetitive recall on "not knowing how to love her" (whosoever "her" may be), lock scan, basic, narrative, postulate, repeater tech.

And then, if still needed, you can have the auditee look at who missed that withhold.

Evaluation, invalidation: They are not a hard job. Usually the postulate falls into your lap. 2WC who or what invalidated him or made him feel evaluated for, and get what he felt like just then. And there is your item. (Similar to the ARCX handling above, yet with no assessment.)


So far, we have spoken of the auditor as someone who restricts himself to giving a session. There is a lot more for him to do, though! Because in order to free a person spiritually, it doesn't suffice to have the auditee look down his time track and recognize the reasons for his bad habits.

If you did only that, your auditee would be left in a state of no havingness, of disorientation. To get a complete job done, one must as well build up new habits. For this reason the auditor has to be as well a coach and a supervisor.

He must coach his client on TRs, on Objectives, and on the theory and practice of auditing (should the auditee want to become a solo auditor).

As well he must teach his client the admin scale, the org board, and the principles and conditions of ethics.

And not only must he teach that, but demand results: he must ask his client for a demonstration of competence. He must look for visible life improvements: does his client have a stable 2D, a good income, is his mest is in good shape, does he know and work along his purpose line, etc.?

It may take years to get there. Years. Years of care, of interest, of intention. Nothing to do with auditing only. It's building a new attitude towards life. Taking down the old one, building a new one.

It takes some work to do that, for client as well as coach. Doesn't happen automatically. And auditing is only a small part of it.

Certainly, a few hours of auditing or training will give a person a big win. But a big win is just that. It doesn't mean much in terms of life changes. Same goes for a big cognition. What follows from it? One has to make it real in life, that's the trick!

So it takes auditing, training and ethics to take a person from where he stands to the fulfillment of his dreams.

Did I say "fulfillment of his dreams"? I did indeed. It may take a whole lifetime. Or several.

What does auditing do? It rehabilitates
beingness: the willingness to be, to fill one's chosen role. It's the state of mind permitting one to recognize one's hat.

From that follows
doingness: the willingness to do. "Doingness" doesn't mean "doing something". It means: "a state of mind permitting action".

It is at this point (not earlier) that training becomes possible. Because the chief prerequisite for training is doingness: the willingness to confront the actions ensuing from the hat one has chosen to wear (beingness). Training teaches one to wear that hat. Training without a willingness to wear that hat, is pointless.

Now that one has recognized one's beingness (the many hats that add up to one's beingness), now that one is willing to confront the pe

Havingness in principle means: able to confront something or nothing with serenity (LK2/p. 123). In our particular context here the emphasis is on "confronting
something". Therefore the definition of havingness is: "a state of mind permitting the production of actual products".

Doing a lot and keeping oneself busy, doesn't necessarily lead to results! It takes an even higher confront ability than mere beingness or doingness to get good products in acceptable quantity that are appreciated by others and exchanged with them for support, money or goodwill.

It takes havingness.

Havingness is the hardest one to confront. Because the quality of a product is always painfully obvious. Doingness is easier, it leaves ample space to pretend or find excuses. Beingness again is totally non­comittal. You think you are the saviour of the universe? No problem, that's fine. The proof of the pudding lies in the answers to three questions: Is he actually behaving like that? Is he acting in the context proper to a saviour of the universe? Is he having the sort of products one would expect from a saviour of the universe?

Once you are down to observing products, judgement becomes possible. Because a product is always compared with the ideal scene pertaining to it.

And all of a sudden ethics conditions apply, since ethics conditions measure the gap between an existing and an ideal scene. They are hard to confront ­ but great for growth.

Auditing is a karma catalyst. It speeds up working off one's old debts but it doesn't replace the living of life.

To conclude, the auditor has three drawers in his toolbox: one, auditing for the rehabilitation of his client's beingness; two, training to build up his client's ability on the basis of his doingness; three, ethics and admin coaching to have his client produce within the limits of his havingness.


Theoretically, as being, doing and having are inseparably interwoven, three ways of spiritual evolvement (three "bridges") could be thought of, all leading to the same end point. One of them would work through rehabilitation of beingness, the other through rehabilitation of doingness, the third through rehabilitation of havingness.

The auditing bridge suggested by Ron Hubbard works on the principle of rehabilitating beingness. The bridge suggested by me, in this book, works on the same principle.

In this approach, doingness and havingness are expected to increase pretty much by themselves, once results on the beingness front have been obtained.

In contrast, what would a bridge based on the principle of doingness look like? It would demand that a person be able to confront action without asking what sense it makes.

Objective processes like Opening Procedure By Duplication work on the basis of this principle. But to actually transfer this microsituation into the macrosituation of life, it would take a bigger process than OPBD: a more life­ consuming process as it were.

What one could do for example, is set oneself the task of getting up every morning at 5 a.m. and take a 20­minute walk. Yet as this could be excused as a health exercise we'd really need something more senseless to make it juicier, like the task of getting up at 4:30 a.m., go outside equipped with a shovel, dig a hole somewhere and then fill it up again, and unfailingly do that each and every morning for exactly 423 days, no more, no less.

Undoubtedly this would get one's whole case rebelling, fully orchestrated with emotions, sensations and somatics. If one broke through that, one would end up a very wise man.

A bridge based on the principle of havingness could be worked out in two different ways.

One would be by exposing oneself to all sorts of pleasant or ugly sense perceptions whilst keeping one's serenity. It's taking TR­0 bullbaited to its extremes. In tantra meditation this is actually done. A serious tantra yogi wouldn't think twice about sitting for a full night inside the decaying corpse of a long­dead cow and meditate serenely. (Sex is only a side line in tantra meditation, although in the west it's made out to be the main thing.)

The other way of building a havingness bridge would be by demanding that one produce something valuable every day, unfailingly every day, something that's needed, wanted and exchanged for by someone. And the higher one could reach on the dynamics, the better one would be getting at it.

Without doubt such exercises, too, would get one's case rebelling and, should one survive it, leave one a very wise man.

However, as I grew up in the traditions of Ron's beingness bridge, I won't ask you to spend your nights inside decaying cows.

Luckily this beingness bridge somewhat incorporates the other two. It demands that one confront the often absurd and questionable incidents one comes across in auditing (doingness), and it demands that one devotes the greater part of one's life to creating the spare time and money to pursue this path at all (havingness).

In this way one's doingness and havingness are quite thoroughly tested. Perhaps not sufficiently so as to satisfy a tantra monk but good enough for us softies of the western world.

What's a bridge good for? Ultimately, to be able "to change one's mind about it". To get out of the ruts one postulated for oneself in the distant past and consciously create oneself each day afresh.


Auditing serves to turn vague intuitive inklings into known certainty. It serves to help the auditee get oriented in his own universe. It serves to find one's personal truth.

The meter is built to react on intuitive inklings. The auditee has a vague notion: and the meter shows a read.

Did the auditee find a truth just then? To a degree he did. At least he approached some truth.

A read means: charge goes off. Charge means: something was never seen the way it is. So a read doesn't stand for a truth found, it merely means that the auditee is approaching some truth. Something has become available for further inspection.

Only the F/N indicates truth. An F/N stands for inner harmony. No contradiction, no friction, no charge. Harmony. F/N.

Example: the auditee says: "As I came down here from Arcturus I was waylaid by a black spaceship and implanted." No read. Therefore untrue? No! Simply not available for inspection. May be true, may be not. And if it read? Is it then true? No! Simply available for inspection.

The auditor's computation right then: "Did it really happen to him? Did it happen to another, and "I" is a valence talking? Or did it happen to him but due to non­confront he has turned F­1 and F­2 around and thinks he has suffered the motivator whereas in fact he committed the overt? Let's inspect this further."

Inspection is done by 2WC and narrative style auditing. Lots of TAA, in the end the incident is discharged. Final statement: "I came down here from Arcturus at the beginning of my last life. In the between­lives area before this present lifetime I hit the Screen in the attempt to leave the planet. That's when I connected up with an entity made by another person who was waylaid by a black spaceship 2 million years ago and implanted." F/N.

True? Yes!

In order to take his auditee there, the auditor must never ask any leading questions. He must not formulate questions which imply the sort of answer the auditor would like to hear in order to prove his think about the case or his current model of life, the universe and everything. He must ask open, non­ evaluative questions. He must be curious (3.5 on the tone scale) and be prepared for the unexpected.

Yet at the same time he is expected to direct the auditee's attention. Quite a tight spot to be in! Because you can't do the one without also doing the other.

Any question an auditor asks is bound to direct the auditee's attention and is therefore (by definition) evaluative.

This is a bit of a tightrope walk, and I suppose that's where the difference lies between auditing as an art and auditing as a mechanical ritual.

To end this section in perhaps a sobering fashion, the following ought to be added: madmen will F/N within their own games framework, although this may have nothing to do with the real world. (Their world seems somewhat parallel to the real world.)

All in all I have interviewed three people who by psychiatric definition would fall in the category of paranoid schizophrenics. Each of them had lovely F/Ns within their self­constructed parallel universes. Each was of the opinion that he didn't need any auditing as he was perfectly sane (which I politely acknowledged).

True? Yes. At least in the way they see it. Which goes for any sort of auditee, after all.


All session difficulties can be traced to ARC difficulties. All ARC difficulties can be traced to out­TRs.

Therefore all session difficulties can be traced to difficulties with TRs 0­4. Or TR 9 (positive leadership)!

Tight needle, dirty needle, no TAA, high TA? TRs are out.

TRs don't work in the absence of ARC. ARC means understanding, lovingness, granting beingness. The more the better: universal understanding, universal love, universal granting of beingness.

Making the auditee in his chair or that entity out in space purr like a cat, that's TRs.

The auditor creates the session. He creates the flavour of the session by his TRs.

How clear is a Clear? He is as clear as his auditor challenged him.

Auditing could be likened to TR­0 bullbaited. How good is a student's TR­0? As good as his coach challenged him. It's the coach's (and auditor's) TR­1 and TR­3 that makes the difference.

"Charge is removed from the case
only by the comm cycle pc to auditor", says Ron in HCOB 13 April 1964.

Auditing is not "easy", even though it is often made to look that way. In its essence it is the naked, unadorned encounter between two thetans, one needing help and the other providing it.

This takes trust and skill, understanding and competence, in a word, the supreme combination of ARC and KRC.

The auditor "listens and computes", as the definition of his activity has it, and indeed he does just that. Nothing else. Any attempt to audit "with the tech" instead of keeping a straight line from person to person, is condemned to fail or at least stay superficial.

Don't hide behind the tech so as to keep yourself from confronting the uniqueness of the auditee you are facing.

Only when the auditor has fully understood all his theory principles conceptually, has made them his own without having to think about them, has excellent TRs and ­ to top it ­ is able to actually
create the session from one moment to the next, will he have the sort of vitality needed to match his auditee's vitally felt desire to change. Only then will the auditee be "in session".

And that goes for any tool the auditor happens to pull out of one of his three drawers, be it the auditing drawer, the training drawer or the ethics drawer. It takes ARC and KRC, it takes compassion and competence, and it takes conceptually understanding the underlying principles to get the auditee through.

The same applies to solo. A solo course is a complete auditor's course, not just some cheap replica of it "for the public". I can assure you: there is no lonelier thetan in the whole universe than the auditor who is in session and gets stuck because he doesn't know his tech.


A person wanting auditing sits in a muddle of counter­postulates. It is the job of the auditor to help the auditee undo this self­created disorder so that he may eventually find his way back to his original, positive games postulates.

Many scientologists inside and outside the Church look at upward progress in terms of ARC. Is the person becoming "nicer"? That's what they want to see happen.

But that's only half the story. Because an auditee shouldn't move up on the emotional side only (tone scale, ARC) but as well on the scale of ethics conditions (KRC).

From his abyss of
confusion he will eventually make it to the summit, to knowing certainty, to the recognition of his own game. He will recognize that his actions have consequences (out of treason), he won't be an enemy to himself any more, will have no doubts about his destination, will have made up for the errors of his past (liability).

He'll be all set to start afresh (

A person who knows what he wants and is determined to get it, isn't always comfortable to have around. Therefore, judging a person's progress by his increase of ARC only may be the wrong yardstick.

Anyone out to win his game will create enemies. So the higher he gets on the KRC­scale the more he is likely to be called a "suppressive person" by those whose toes he trod on.

He wasn't "nice" enough for their taste.

Yet ARC and KRC go hand in hand. A high­toned person may permit himself to become quite heavy­handed when the success of his game depends on it. The higher­toned, the heavier. More horsepower.

The wise man combines compassion and competence ­ that's the meaning of the scientology symbol (two triangles).

The Auditor ­ A Data Evaluator

How does the auditor get the auditee to the point of knowing his game and play it with a winning attitude?

Obvious answer: by handling the losing attitude. By detecting and cancelling all counter­postulates.

Yes. But how is this done?

Certainly not by rote processes. Not by playing the patient listener. It's done by being a detective!

The auditor has to
compute. He gathers and evaluates data on two points. One: what's this thetan doing here on Earth? What did he come for? Two: what keeps him from knowing and successfully doing it?

In true fact, the auditor is a data evaluator. He goes for the Real Why: the postulate.

The auditor has to be curious. He must have a built­in bullshit­detector, a sense for data contradiction. By looking at the plausibility of the auditee's data within the context at hand, he must tactfully challenge the auditee's data and statements (without breaking the auditor's code!). Can it have been the way the auditee says it? Could it possibly have been otherwise? How did he get into this mess in the first place? What considerations did he have? What games context was this happening in?

First the motivator: what trap did he get into? Then the prior overt: how was he responsible for it?

This is the auditor's attitude to the auditee: "Given that you are an all­ knowing, all­responsible and all­controlling being ­ how did you manage to end up in the mess you are in?"

KRC all the way.

Other practices are strong on the affinity side. "Good vibes" and all that. Scientology is strong on the reality side: "No messing about, mister, what's the Real Why?" That sort of approach.

That's why scientology appears "unloving".

The auditor must get data from his auditee. Loads of data. That's his first job. They may not always fit in logically with each other. They may not make sense. Contradictions show up. Wrong sequence. Unlikely time factors. Some statements may not read. Some may have a rising TA, others a dirty needle. And so on. Something very fishy going on!

These are outpoints. Outpoints are deviations from the ideal scene of plausible, correctly fitting data.

The auditor must be on top of this ever­increasing mass of data he gets from his auditee and evaluate them against each other and the ideal scene of full plausibility. He must be able to smell outpoints. That's his second job.

Yet he must also detect pluspoints: well­reading statements, clean needle, TA moving up and coming down again, well­related, plausible data ­ these are pluspoints, because they mean that the auditee is getting someplace.

The first job: get data. The second job: evaluate them.

Yet despite all of this data evaluation going on the auditor would never put the auditee's goodwill and trustworthiness in question! Because when their mutual trust goes, the session goes.

The auditor doesn't mistrust the auditee as a person. But he mistrusts the auditee's data when there is a good reason for it. Quite an important difference!

The Auditee Has No Case In Session

The auditor works
with the auditee. They are a team. And funnily enough, the auditor shouldn't permit his auditee to have a case in session. At least I don't.

I'm expecting my auditees not to "go banky" in session. I'm expecting them to do their work properly, i.e. do their bit in the auditing communication cycle, and I'm expecting them to dramatize (would be terrible if they suppressed it), but I'm at the same time expecting them to keep the job going despite all dramatizations.

I'm addressing a thetan, not a bank. I'm not auditing his bank, I'm auditing him. I'm listening to him and I'm trying to make sense out of what I hear ("computing").

Example: auditee sits writhing on his chair, foam frothing forth from mouth, nose and ears, and I would ask him: "Hey, that's interesting, isn't it? Now let's see ­ what sense does this peculiar phenomenon make in context with the problem we are trying to solve? How does it answer up to the auditing question we are working on?"

Let him dramatize, that's fine. The auditee must be allowed to dramatize, he must allow himself to dramatize, because dramatizing opens the inflow valve from the bank. Suppressed emotions, sensations and somatics blowing through the pipes. Great! Yet at the same time I would expect the auditee to stay outside the dramatization and be able to look at it.

Speaking very philosophically, when you address your auditee on his highest level of cause you are in a zone of no case.

When you consider him the source of his own case and actually approach him that way, you are in a zone above that of by­passed charge. It's the interaction between two games players, or rather two games makers (auditor and auditee), agreeing on a common game (that of auditing).

If the auditor only for a moment were to take the auditee's case seriously and commiserate, the session would break down.

Certainly, on a social level the auditor appears to take a case seriously. But speaking to the auditee from source to source, addressing him as a static on a level above and beyond the predicaments the auditee created for himself, speaking to him on that level then, the auditor can't take his auditee's case seriously. Neither can the auditee, on that level, take his own case seriously.

Commiserating with the auditee is a grave invalidation of the auditee's static quality.

On the 8th dynamic you get pure postulated knowingness. On the 7th dynamic you get mental energy phenomena ("pictures"). On the 6th dynamic you get a meter needle, a pendulum or a dowser's rod reacting to the phenomena on the 7th dynamic. Likewise, on the 5th dynamic you get your body reacting to 7th dynamic phenomena.

The reaction on the 5th and 6th dynamic confirm that something is going on on the 7th dynamic. And that again confirms that on the 8th there must be a postulate. The postulate triggers what goes on below.

A postulate one can only know, not see or feel. It's pure knowingness. The phenomena below that level one needs to remind oneself that one knows.

This is how the thetan fools himself. He might as well know right away! But as he pretends that he can't, he needs auditing. This describes the game that goes on in a session.

Given that the auditor can play his role of an unswaying truth­seeker, of a merciless detective and data­evaluator with compassion and competence, his auditee will eventually come to understand the background of his unwanted performances in life and break through to new, desirable performances.

He will have had very exciting and rewarding sessions. And the auditor will as well!

And what's the point? Why should one put order into one's mind? So that one may put order into the world, of course!

Copyright © 1997-2001 FreeZone America, All Rights Reserved.   See our Privacy-Policy