6111C02 SHSpec-75 How to Security Check

The answer to why the bank beefs up when non-goals-terminals are run is
this: When you run the terminal which is not the goals terminal, his attention
is too bound up in his own terminal and goal to as-is the collapsing mass. So
the mass the auditor pushes in on the PC, connected to the new terminal,
doesn't get as-ised. The PC doesn't have enough attention units to as-is
anything except the goals terminal, so the bank beefs up. Similarly, your
E-meter starts up, the TA rises, to the degree that the PC is not as-ising
what you are throwing in on him.

The worst thing about E-meters is TR-0. TR-0 goes out and the meter
doesn't work. An E-meter is a deadly weapon. You can slaughter a PC if the
E-meter is not used correctly. You do this by missing instant reads. If, in
addition, you took up latent reads and let the PC get off other people's
overts, the session itself would be an overt, and the PC would feel worse
afterwards. A more dangerous mistake is missing an instant read and leaving
the question live, which can often result in the PC nattering, criticizing you
and the organization, etc. Very funny. If you miss the question, he doubts
you, your ability, the tech, etc. When you clean it up by pulling the
withhold, the natter stops.

A latent read has a comm lag of 0.5 sec or more.

You could sec check a person into a high TA by making sure all the ruds
were out, so his attention would be dispersed. Audit what the PC is stuck
in. When a PC's attention is too bound up in one area, the PC cannot as-is
anything else, so the TA goes high and sticks. It's not that the TA's going
high should be utterly avoided. But the TA goes high because more is being
thrown in on the PC than the PC can handle or as-is. If, during a run, the PC
hits an engram, he may not be able to as-is it, if you start directing his
attention to all the details, etc. and start running the engram. So just
acknowledge it and carry on [with the goals or terminals run you were doing].
The auditor can push mass, circuits, pictures, etc., in on the PC and can move
his track more easily than the PC, hard though it may be for auditors to
recognize this. So your interrogation of the PC can pin his attention on the
track. It's Ok to be curious enough to find out what he is looking at or
doing, but not to start running it. Of course you can move him out of it by
asking for earlier or later incidents. The reactive mind is always keyed to
other-determinism and never to self-determinism, so the auditor can always
move it around.

High TA is often cured by getting off a withhold, even a small one.
Getting off any withhold will make the TA go down.

[Data on sec checking by dynamics]

The trouble with the sec check is usually that the auditor is working
from his own viewpoint and not from the PC's. A thetan is not natively a
member of any culture. Thetans have come down the track accumulating various
mores and civilizations and group ideas. Some have come down the track
without finding out that groups exist. They've collected various things, but
their mores register on the dynamics [rather than relative to groups.]

Make sure you sec check what the PC considers an overt, even if to you it
seems trivial. People are different. Men are so busy being ordinary that
they don't recognize that every one of them is slightly, somewhere,
extraordinary. This professional ordinariness is a great repressor; it
not-ises the differences. Unless you can re-establish difference, you can't
re-establish differentiation. The easy way out, the easy solution, is to say
that it's all the same; they are all alike, all bad, so now I'm warned and
safe, if miserable. That's such stupid reasoning that it's no wonder
countries go down the drain of "all people are equal, but some people are more
equal than others". Perhaps thetans were all equal at the beginning of the
track, then became unequal and masked it with a pretended equality.

[Details on problems intensives and sec check procedures]

It is interesting that you can sec check out of existence every
out-rudiment: the room, PTP's, the auditor, ARC breaks. Just get the prior
confusion . A rudiment can't hang up unless there's an unknown, and an
unknown can't exist unless there's a withhold. Here we have a class of things
that all go together: unknowingness, forgettingness, stupidity, and
withholds. They are like A, R, and C in the ARC triangle; they go up and down
together.

You are not likely to get a factual answer to the question, "Have you
ever made someone guilty of something?" The thing that is wrong with the PC is
that he has never successfully made anybody guilty and he is still trying.
The basis of his aberration is the effort to made someone guilty, not the
accomplished fact. You should ask, "Have you ever attempted to make anybody
guilty of _______ ?" The only reason anyone has a victimish, motivatorish
attitude is in an effort to make someone guilty. It may have even been a
successful effort, but the person making the effort doesn't know about it.

It is a debatable point whether you should ever take an unkind thought as
an overt. Sometimes it does seem to be the only available overt, and the
person does feel friendlier and better for having gotten it off. But there
appears to be evidence that a person with a body of unkind thoughts against
someone or something has an actual overt which is being withheld. The unkind
thoughts are evidently just evidence that overts exist. So if you don't get
the overts, you are leaving them with unflat sec check questions. Critical
thoughts don't aberrate people. But the PC may not be able to reach the
underlying overt. So if he can't, make a note, so that you can return to it.