There are many reasons why sessions should be standardized and held in pattern. First of these is confidence. The auditor, going over practised ground, feels more confident and, startled by some sudden action or new development, does not lose session control by seeming incapable to the pc. The preclear, accustomed to repetitive session pattern, feels a security when all his sessions are predictable as to pattern of address. And if he changes auditors he is still able to feel confident that he is getting real auditing.
A second reason is duplication: Just as old repeater technique done by the auditor to the pc will run out a phrase or charged word, so do session patterns, well followed, tend to run out earlier sessions. Duplication does not make all things seem alike. Duplication of a session adds communication to the session and speeds up the willingness of the pc to communicate to the auditor.
The basic freeing action of auditing depends upon the separation of thought from form, matter, energy, space and time and other life.
We see in “science” as currently practised a nearly total identification by the “scientist” of mass with thought. “Man from mud” is a natural conclusion by anyone who has all his thought bound up in mass.
The reason a clear’s needle is so free (and you’ve seen, certainly, how an E-Meter needle gets sticky, then freer and freer) is that his thought is separated from a matter, energy, space, time consequence.
The “deadin-’is-’ead” case is totally associating all thought with mass. Thus he reads peculiarly on the meter. As he is audited he frees his thinkingness so that he can think without mass connotations.
What auditing is doing is making the preclear think key thoughts until they can be thought without creating or disturbing matter, energy, space and time.
As most pcs associate themselves with thought, only when they can think a thought without ploughing anew into mass can they exteriorize. Difficult exteriorization or exteriorization with bad consequences is all caused by a person’s considerations of thought being matter, self being matter, etc, etc.
The basic overt act is making somebody else want mest. This recoils so that self wants mest. Thus we have the “necessity for havingness”. Running havingness restores the pc at cause over matter, permits him to be separate from matter to some degree.
Thinking, then, is separated from mest by repetitive thinking on the exact points that pin a particular person to mest.
If a person is aberrated, say, on the subject of women, the shortest cut to de-aberration (barring havingness difficulties — see below) would be the repeated command “Think of a woman.” At last he would no longer have pictures or masses just because he thought that thought and you would then find he could think about women as opposed to reacting about women.
This naturally leads to an obvious basic process, “Think about matter” “Think about energy” “Think about space” “Think about time” “Think about a thetan.” In theory each one could be run flat in turn and then all run again.
In actual practice this is pretty steep for most cases and would not be real to many. A more complex approach containing more significance is more real to the pc.
The pc’s mind is trapped into forms of mest and life, rather than merely mest and life. Thus, what falls on the E-Meter needle shows what form of mest and life his attention is fixed upon.
Havingness is a complicated subject when viewed in a pc’s mind. Familiarity, which is to say, predictability, is strongly connected with his ability to have or own. When he receives shocks or surprises, his ability to predict is invalidated and he can’t have.
The reason a thetan “dies” is his loss of the familiar by the introduction of the unpredictable. Rapidity of change of state, unpredicted, would be a definition of surprise, also of death and forgetfulness.
The more change he is subjected to, that he did not predict, the less he can have.
Thus when he is given a “rough session”, the pc’s havingness goes down. Not predicting the shifts and changes of the auditor, the pc ceases to be able to have the session or its appurtenances — the auditor, the room, etc. The smoother the auditing the better the pc’s havingness stays up.
The model session is designed to avoid unpredictable changes. Thus it is designed to retain havingness by retaining pattern, which is to say, retaining predictability by the pc.
Auditing, done smoothly, duplicatively session by session as to session pattern, runs itself out, even if the pc has a constantly changing bank.
A pc began to use pictures when he changed lives and sometimes, therefore, language, but only after he had already adopted language for thought. So an ultimate step in processing could concern itself with separating the pc from the significance of words. Some such process as “Think of a word,” followed by “Think of a meaning,” would in theory, if it could be run (but has not been tested and would violate havingness), discharge the pc of his dependence on language for thought and would find him less fixated on having pictures (which of course bridge the language barrier).
Appearing in a form composed of matter, running on energy, existing in space and keeping pace with others in time is a favour pcs do one another (or an overt act depending on how cynical you may feel when you consider it).
The games condition of havingness is have for self, can’t have for others. Appearing in a form violates this games condition. Also, giving another words violates it. Thus actors and writers tend to go downhill by violating their own games condition if they are in one. A games condition evolves from separateness. Running some form of separateness can then result in exteriorization not from willingness to lose the mass of the body but by curing the games condition. Separateness is of course handled on lower cases by running out obsessive connectedness. But separateness itself can be run.
Any auditing is a solution: Solutions are ordinarily an alter-is of problems. Thus getting people to confront problems or even solutions can resolve not only case but auditing where auditing itself has now and then, in absence of smooth analysis and session handling, become a problem to the preclear.
A fine process for this is “Tell me a problem that auditing would be a solution to,” and for that matter, this also applies to any psychosomatic illness. A person with a bad leg would experience relief if audited on “Tell me a problem a bad leg would be a solution to,” as a repetitive process. Similarly, it might work if one asked “Tell me a solution to a bad leg you could confront,” or “What problem about a leg could you confront?” which last is very good as a process.
The separation of thinkingness from a problem, from particular forms, and from Life and Mest are the primary targets of auditing. And just as the repetitive auditing command runs out not only the connection with a mass but itself, so does a repetitive session design eventually free the pc from not only his aberrations but auditing itself.
A person gets as able as he regains confidence — and he gets as free as his auditing is a constant not itself a wild variable.