The basic answer to the question stated below is yes, the being has
been dealing by not dealing.  Auditing and two way comm gets the being
to spot the not dealing, and the mass and energy blows off, leaving him
able to deal again.

     He didn't HAVE to shut it all out, he thought life would be better
doing so, factually he turned out wrong, life would have been better if
he had kept track of all his losses.

     The preclear deals by not dealing.

     The clear deals by dealing.

     That said, the auditor has to have perfect TR's and ACKS, keep his
own case out of it, and really want the preclear to get better.  The
auditor also has to be FAST, and be able to audit the preclear in front
of him, and not some watered down mockup that the auditor can can
confront, especially if the auditor thinks he is bigger than everyone
else in the world.

     The auditor has to understand that his job is to dominate the
preclear's bank, not dominate the preclear.

     The preclear is a communication relay point between the auditor and
the bank, the bank responds to the AUDITOR not to the preclear, who
merely hands the answer back to the auditor when the bank gives it to

     If the preclear is rumaging around in endless tar, chaos and
madness to find an answer to the question, the preclear is BEING a
bank, and the real bank is sitting there drinking whiskey and
rye waiting for the auditor to recognize it as the one with the answers.
     THE BANK doesn't have a hard time coming up with answers if the
commands are directed to it subject.

     FINDING the right subject is where you get to find out if the
auditor is talking TO the preclear, which is a dead end, or THROUGH the
preclear to the BANK.

     The preclear doesn't know and doesn't have any BANK answers, only
the BANK has bank answers, so talk to the bank and not the preclear.
TR's are used to talk to the preclear when the preclear is no longer
acting as a relay to the bank.

     The auditor must also understand that you can't help a preclear
with his mother by talking about your own mother :) The one who asks the
question or gives the commands is the auditor, the one who looks and
answers is the preclear.
     A preclear looking for help in the form of advice or consultation
will start to ask questions of the auditor making the auditor the

     Preclear's will pay endlessly for this.

     Remember the auditor knows everything about the preclear's case IN
GENERAL, but not in specific.  The preclear knows everything about his
case in SPECIFIC (under the not-is), but not the general, for which he
needs training and indoc.
     Thus the auditor is a councilor and not a consultant who knows more
about the preclear than the preclear does in specific.
     If the auditor is a screwball escapee from cramming, his commands
will not direct the bank and the fileclerk mechanism will hand out
ridicule of the auditor or misdirection of the session to the preclear.

     So yes two way comm between auditor and preclear, with the auditor
in control can help the preclear get answers out of his recalcitrant
bank.  However preclear's are TERRIFIED of exceeding the auditor's
reality and acceptance levels.
     Yes preclear's will get into heavy dub-in and delusion before the
incidents start to go actual on him, but if he running actual and the
auditor is thinking its all dub-in and delusion, the auditor won't allow
the preclear to end the run, because you can't end a run of delusion, it
never ends.

     If the auditor is a 'we never went to the moon' case, and can't
muster any altitude with the preclear, whether real or imagined,
auditing won't happen, F/N's will be small above 3.0 and TA will be
nonexistent except TA resulting from the preclear holding an internal
dialog with himself and probably a committee of 20 BT's about why he is
getting auditing from this guy in the first place.
     Preclear's will do hours of that too, him and his BT friends
passing around that bottle of whiskey and rye with his bank all the
while the auditor is beaming 'Wow look at this guy and all the TA he is
making! I just wonder why he glares at me every time I call off an


Hash: SHA1 wrote:
>#1.  Do you believe, (either owing to your first hand experience, or
>owing to the theoritical soundness of the idea) that *merely allowing
>another human being to recount their personal experiences in life (in
>your presence*) is useful to that human being's fundamental well being
>as well as their ultimate psychological/spiritual growth? (in the
>presence of the absence of judgement of the beholder, called the
>auditor, or as the case may be, called you.)

     The issue is based on what the being did during the original

     Hubbard said he made a facsimile and later used it to recreate the
conditions of the incident in order to elicit sympathy or fend off
contra survival forces and intentions in the environment or other people.

     Adore says the being handled the original incident with not-isness
and postulates about the benefit of limitations and is in fact, still
there in the past, not just stuck in a facsimile in the past.

     The intent of auditing is to get the being to reevaluate his
postulates which may have been a good idea at the time, but probably no
longer serve him in the present game.

     Notice this is very different than coming to terms with the loss
NOW.  Its not enough to accept now what happened and what you did in the
incident.  One has to figure out what one should have done in the first
place back then knowing what you did then!

     That's a much bigger order.

     Used to be we could pretend to be crippled so the recruiting forces
would leave us alone, and then undo it every evening when we went to bed
at night.

     Then one day the recruits raid us during the night and find out we
aren't crippled at all, and so it became useful to be crippled all the
time just in case.

     Thus one is stuck on old postulates of the advantage of being

     Have you looked at a local meatball recently?  Sheesh.

     So we want the being to go back to the past and reevaluate some of
those postulates so that he can rewrite the incident rather than throw a
lot of force at it and duck it like it never existed.

     Rewriting the incident to a satisfactory 'what he should have done
then', will not rewrite physical universe history but will rewrite his
personal state as if he had actually done the right thing at the time.
Mostly eschew the flinch and cringe.

     This is pure magic, unbelievable until it is experienced.

     On top of that the being gets back all the enturbulated theta he
used to cement the not-is in the place and all the ensuing nonsense that
happened later because of his non confront.

     So he gets back all this energy he packed away into black tar,
obsidian and crazy glue and he gets to be as if it never happened in the
first place.  Quite a deal for a few hours of properly done auditing.


Thu Jan  5 00:05:10 EST 2006

================ ====================
Sun Oct 20 03:06:02 EDT 2013
Send mail to saying help
================== ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Tue Oct 22 16:31:56 EDT 2013