Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Confessional Fundamentals - BTB620104

4 JANUARY 1962
Reissued 6 March 1977
Revises and Reinstitutes HCO Bulletin of 4 January 1962
“Security Checking: Fundamentals” as a BTB
Remimeo Franchise __________


The most fundamental thing to know about confessionals is that a case with withholds will not clear. And the next most fundamental element to know is that; a case with withholds will not clear. Perhaps, if this is repeated loud enough and long enough, not only preclears, but perhaps even Auditors will realize that this is an absolute, unavoidable truth, one which can not be overlooked or neglected at any time, under any circumstances.

First of all, what is a withhold? A withhold is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival.

Because a withhold is a no action or no motion after doingness, it naturally hangs up in time and floats in time — due to the actions or the overts which preceded the no action or no motion of the withhold. The reactive mind is, therefore, the combined withholds stacked up which the individual has against groups from which he feels that he is individuated from but from which he has not separated due to the fact that he has these withholds in his bank and also all the combined agreements toward survival of all these groups, from which he is not separate, and which he uses reactively to solve problems now without inspection.

Example: The individual belonged at some time to the Holy Fighters. One of the mores of this group was that all should be destroyed who do not accept the Word. The Holy Fighters went out on a punitive expedition against a neighboring tribe who would not accept the Word, but accepted some other belief. There was a great battle with much killing, however, during the battle, the individual took pity upon a helpless child and did not kill him, but took the child off the field of battle, gave him food and drink, and left him; returning, himself, to the battle.

After the battle was successfully won, the Holy Fighters had their usual service during which all spoke of how they had killed all non-believers. Our individual withheld from the group that he had not only failed to kill, but had saved the life of a non-believer. Thus we have the no action of the withhold after the overt or action of saving the child, all of which added up to a transgression against the mores of the Holy Fighters.

Because of such similar transgressions, the individual finally individuated from the group of Holy Fighters and became a member of the Board of Directors of the Society for Kindness to Humans, which itself has its own agreements to survival and with which the individual agreed; however, when difficulties or problems arose, the individual instead of treating all with kindness tended to covertly try to destroy all who would not accept the tenets of kindness. So he reactively was solving the problems of the Society of Kindness with a survival more of the Holy Fighters. Due to all his transgressions and withholds of his destructive impulses while a member of the Society for Kindness, he finally individuated from this group.

Now he is a member of Anti-Emotions, Incorporated, but he finds that he can’t rule out all his emotions, but tends to be destructive and kind at the same time. So he is still solving problems not only with the mores of the Holy Fighters, but with those of the Society for Kindness to Humans. And so it goes.

Processing this individual we will find that he has all these withholds of overts against the Holy Fighters, the Society for Kindness to Humans, and Anti-Emotions, Incorporated. After we have pulled all these overts, he will truly be separate from these groups and no longer reactively use their survival mechanisms as solutions to problems.

Further the action of withholding is one point where the preclear does what the reactive mind does. He withholds his own overts of transgressions against the moral code of a group in order to avoid punishment, thusly enhance his own survival, and he withholds himself from the group finally in an effort to avoid committing further overts. So just as the reactive mind contains all past survival agreements which are used to solve problems threatening the survival of the individual, so does the individual decide to withhold transgressions, in order to survive himself, and withholds himself from groups to avoid committing overts. Withholding and surviving occur at the same time. So the communication bridge between the preclear and the reactive mind is the withhold.

The pulling of overts which have been withheld then is the first step towards getting the preclear to take control of the reactive mind. The more withholds he gives up, the more the old survival mechanisms of the reactive mind are destroyed.

Further as a withhold of an overt creates a further overt act of not-know on the group with which one is co-acting with toward survival along an agreed upon moral code, so we are running off all the ignorance created for others by an individual which results in ignorance to himself. In this fashion, we are processing the individual up toward Native State or Knowingness.

Therefore, in doing confessionals upon a preclear, you are really attacking the whole basis of the reactive mind. It is an activity which the auditor should earnestly and effectively engage upon. In doing this the auditor always assumes that the preclear can remember his overts and can overwhelm the reactive mind. Just as with the CCHs so with confessionals, any objections raised by the preclear as regards confessionals are only a confusion being thrown up by the reactive mind, but the individual is really trying to look for what is there despite the reactive mind’s doing this. This is why any failure to pull an overt is considered a crime against the preclear. The auditor in failing to pull an overt has given the reactive mind a win and the preclear a failure, and has further given the preclear another overt against the group he is now associated with, namely, that of Scientology, because he has succeeded in withholding from it.

So in confessionals the auditor on any particular question never looks at the E-Meter on that particular question, until the preclear has reached an impass on that question, and says that he really and truly can think of no further answers. This creates confidence that the Auditor and the preclear are really working together to overwhelm the reactive mind.

When the impasse is reached on any particular question, then the auditor asks the whole question looking all the time at the E-Meter. If the meter gives an instant read (any needle reaction, i.e. Fall, Rock Slam, Theta Bop or change of needle characteristic which occurs within half of a second or up to three-quarters of a second, in case the preclear has a delayed circuit on hearing) to the question or any word or phrase in the question, then the auditor uses the E-Meter to assist the preclear in pulling all further overts.

It is only at this point of impasse where the preclear insists he has no further answers, but the question or parts of the question still react, that the auditor varies the original confessional question, compartments the question as to reacting words and phrases, and cleans all reactions off any word or phrase in the question or the question itself. A stable datum as regards this is that if the question or any part of it still reacts, there are further withholds there or not all about a particular withhold was pulled. Never allow a preclear to persuade you that it is only already pulled withholds which are still reacting. A withhold pulled will not cause a question to still reacting; it can only be that not all about the withhold was pulled or that there are further undisclosed withholds on that question.

Do not leave a confessional question until the auditor, the preclear, the reactive mind, and the E-Meter are in absolute agreement that there is nothing more on a particular question.

Remember the E-Meter is not bound by the Auditor’s Code. If it still reacts on a question, then the auditor must null that question.

What is meant by nulling a question is that the auditor in the first place has enough presence as an auditor to get the E-Meter to read properly, and remember this depends upon his ability to get Rudiments in well and upon the ratio of his reality to the preclear, and the whole original question and no part of the rudiment question gets any reaction including no needle pattern, at Sensitivity 16. Any needle pattern on a confessional means that there is a reaction to the question and all must be pulled on that question until the needle is null, or rising. *Editor’s note: As per HCOB 14 March 71R, “F/N Everything”, a reading confessional question must be brought to an F/N. This datum was not known in 1962.

A confessional question must never be left unnulled. If the preclear’s intensive is terminating, you must null that question no matter how many extra hours you have to put in on the preclear. If he is continuing his auditing, you tell him that the question is not null and you will null it in the next session. Any failure to pull an overt is a crime against that preclear.

Eliminate all ‘unkind thought’ questions on any confessional, and substitute ‘done anything to’ in the question. Unkind thoughts are merely tags telling you that the preclear has actually done something. Unkind thoughts are merely a mechanism of lessening the overt.

In pulling overts, be careful that you do not allow the preclear to give you his justifications for having committed it. In allowing him to give you motivators or ‘reasons why’ you are allowing him to lessen the overt.

You are only interested in what the preclear has done, not what he has heard that others have done. So never allow a preclear to get off withholds to you about others, except in the case where he has been an accessory to a criminal act. A preclear reactively trying to give you other people’s withholds, normally is giving lying withholds, so you must be careful to check over your new end rudiments carefully.

Remember that your duty as an auditor is to simply employ your skill to obtain a greater decency and ability on the past of others. You do this by performing well your function of clearing the meter and getting off all overts and withholds. An auditor is not an enforcer of public morals. If an auditor tries to make a preclear guilty, he is violating Clause 15 of the Auditor’s Code, which says: ‘Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices. ’ Punishment is an old practice which is not part of our activities in Scientology. Do confessionals against the reality of the preclear and his moral code and do not try to make him guilty. The value of any withhold is only the value the preclear puts on it.

As a case improves, his responsibility level will increase, and if his responsibility level is increasing he will get off further, new withholds. If an auditor is not getting new withholds coming off a preclear, he had better look for a gross error in his auditing. He either is disinterested and unwilling to help the preclear, or he is technically unskillful on his TRs, Model Session, and the E-Meter, or he does not have the preclear in session or he has withholds himself. Only an auditor with withholds will fail to pull them on others.

The number of withholds a preclear has available at any given time depends upon those that are available at that given time. To clarify this point, assume that all preclears have the same set number of withholds. Well, the number available within the realm of the preclear’s present state of reality and responsibility will naturally vary. Preclears with a high reality and responsibility level will have more withholds available for pulling than preclears with a low reality and responsibility level. This is why it is so important that confessionals be continued throughout auditing. His reality and responsibility level will increase throughout processing bringing to light many new overts. If these are not pulled, the preclear will be forced into unintentionally withholding them and his case will bog down and not progress.

There are many HCO WW Confessionals to assist you in pulling withholds. In using these, an auditor must never, never omit a question on any of these, but he can add questions to them. Then there is the Problems Intensive, Dynamic Confessionals, specialized confessionals tailored to fit the professional or present activities of the preclear, and special confessionals to cover the transgressions of the preclear against the moral code of any group with which he has co-acted. On the latter, as a person in one lifetime only has belonged to many different groups, you can see the tremendous possibility of confessionals applied to the moral code of all groups on a whole track basis. Particular attention must be paid to the present group with whom he is currently co-acting, namely Scientology. This is why it is important to do the last two pages of the Form 3 and all of Form 6 on all Scientologists first because in the first place he is expecting something to help him against which he has overts and to that degree these overts are overts against himself as they will, if not pulled, prevent him from being helped, and in the second place overts against current groups are most important, then overts committed in this lifetime, and then overts committed on the track, the reason being that he is still connected with these current groups and with this lifetime.

Confessionals are the most fruitful source of cognition, because you are pulling off the preclear’s not-knows on the Third Dynamic, which have kept others in ignorance and himself in stupidity. Besides this, you tremendously increase the preclear’s ability to communicate. And on top of all this you make a preclear much easier to audit. And if all his withholds are pulled, he can be cleared.

Pretty good gains to work for? Well then, let’s get busy.

Taken from the Tape Lectures of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
By Mary Sue Hubbard
Revised by
Training & Services Bureau
Authorized by AVU for the
of the