6403C19 SHSpec-12 Flattening a Process

An auditor can lay aside some basic fact, do something else, and then
wonder why he is having trouble. Flattening a process is such a fact. There
are two aspects to ending a process, both having to do with what you are doing
with the process:

1. Fixing the PC up so that he can be audited (rudiments).

2. Auditing the PC.

This gives you two different endings. In rudiments, you are doing just enough
to cure the elsewhereness of the PC. You don't want any PTP to get in the
road of auditing. Use the "ruds kit" to brush off PT hassles. Destimulate
the PC and get on with what you started as a major cycle. Not knowing this,
you will never complete a cycle of action on a PC. You will keep on having to
audit out-ruds, never finishing a cycle, because you don't use tools of
destimulation to push the out-rud out of your road.

The other extreme is to abandon a prepcheck or some major action because
the PC had a little cognition about something. Don't use a ruds-like whisk
broom on a major action. You don't end off in three minutes, with a little
bitty cog. You use the TA and you get action off the area. You have to
unflatten a subject before you can flatten it, running all the TA out of it.
That is main-body-of-the-session auditing. Main-session auditing is all done
with the TA, never as with the rudiments. If you use the wrong approach, you
will get the wrong ending, and the PC will go nowhere. You have to
restimulate the PC to audit him. You only leave major actions when the TA is
off. You don't chicken out and say, "Oh, it is seeming a bit better now, is
it? Fine! That's a cog, so we will end off now." Flunk!!

Auditing by list is like R2H. You could use a sec check list, carefully
not impinging on the PC, not restimulating anything to audit. But that is not
the way to handle the body of the session, where you really want to handle
things. The approach you use in the ruds is to restimulate nothing, so that
you can get in and audit something else later. Auditors who treat bodies of
sessions like rudiments damage the PC, because they leave processes unflat.
All sorts of charge will have been left bypassed, if this happens. The effect
of this is dramatic and fast-acting in R6. It is less so at lower levels.
But the long term result is the same. You could run, "What process has been
left unflat?", and get considerable gain.

What happens if you start a prepcheck on one thing and shift to another
thing before you finish? For one thing, the PC's ability to be prepchecked
will suffer. He will be harder to prepcheck. also, if you prepcheck with a
bad comm cycle, the tool would get blunted. You could even prepcheck
prepchecking, or prepcheck each prepcheck button. The basic reason why a
prepcheck button goes out is an incomplete cycle of action.

Thetans have a bug on continuing. They like to see cycles continue.
That gives the longevity and mass of the physical universe. At a low level,
any case is subject to the cycle of action. "Fatalism is a total subjugation
of the individual by the cycle of action: 'What will be, will be.'" The
individual is at total effect. People are in agreement with the cycle of
action, but not because it is ultimate truth. However, it only fades out 'way
up there. At higher levels, you can widen your time-span and do various odd
things with time. Everybody is used to and in agreement with the cycle of
action, so it is a reality, but not a truth, that you use in auditing.
Violations of it bring about an unreality. That is what happens if you start
an auditing cycle with a PC and don't finish it. The PC is parked in the
middle of some incompletely as-ised mass, which he carries on into the next
process, and so on. Things start looking more and more complicated to the PC
as these incomplete cycles stack up. Freedom is real to him as "completing a
cycle of action". So there is both the mass that he hasn't as-ised and the
incompleteness of the cycle. The idea of a win usually goes along with the
cycle of action. One wins when one accomplishes something, even if it is just
the accomplishing of still being there. The upper echelon of this comes under
intention.

Intention is part of, but senior to, the comm cycle. "It has in it every
power the thetan has," including the power to throw lightning bolts, to hold a
position, to make something continue, to do away with something, strength,
accomplishment, and wit. When you are half-shot as a thetan, when you are
pretty bad off, but not yet in a body, when you are pretty gummed up with
mass, your intention is still quite good enough to intend the E-meter across
the desk, or a crayon into the air, or the telephone receiver off the cradle.
The ability to intend is all there is to a thetan's power. All you have to do
to weaken a thetan is to foul up his intentions, which you can do by blunting
or giving him loses on his intentions. Weakness is the only thing that traps
the thetan, that holds him down, etc. So the main thing we have to watch in
auditing is that we don't weaken the PC's own intention. Never blunt the PC's
own intentions. To avoid doing this, we must differentiate between the PC's
intentions and his bank dramatizations. Dramatizations are not intended.
Validate the PC, not the bank. You don't ruin a PC by blunting his
intentions, but you can key in incidents where his intention was blunted, if
you interrupt a cycle of action half way through. Failure to complete
auditing cycles validates the bank and blunts the PC's intentions. Getting
the PC's goals for the session, if possible, is important in this regard. You
should at least get them cared for as ruds, before getting the body of the
session going, so that his GI's are in and his attention is free, so that he
has had a win. In every PTP, the PC's intention has been blunted. A person
makes no progress when he has a PTP, because his intentions are blunted. He
has an intention, which something else counters with equal force, so that it
hangs up in time.

Level V demonstrates this marvellously. "Oppose" was the way the power
of the thetan was knocked out, by taking his goals and intentions and
implanting an automatic blunting mechanism. The implant GPM's themselves
oppose each other. Opposition is the keynote of an implant, and it is the
only way in which they are aberrative. They have too little mass to be really
upsetting by themselves. It is what has been done to intention that is
upsetting. Children get spoiled, not because the get all the want, but
because they get their reactive intentions validated, e.g. they get rewarded
for tantrums, and they get their analytical intentions opposed. I.e. the
child is not allowed to do what he wants analytically. The auditor who only
pays attention to a PC when he ARC breaks is doing the same thing. PCs don't
turn nasty. They get overwhumped by the bank when their own intentions are
blunted, and the bank dramatizes. A person who is weakened is unable to hold
anything at a distance, so everything collapses on him. If you don't so
anything about the PC's intentions, you get the PC's dramatizations.

The auditor's intention is valuable to the session. Because he is less
susceptible than the PC to dramatization in the PC's bank, his intention is
senior to the PC's. But if the PC's intention is neglected, it weakens, and
we get an increased chance of dramatization. The PC's analytical intentions
are also valuable to the session. Down deep, the PC intends to get freedom
and a return of power (i.e. a return of intention). He can now go all the
way, if he works along a certain path. The intention for him to arrive is
sotto voce in the PC and more explicit in the auditor, since the auditor isn't
getting distracted by the bank. The PC can mix up freedom and escape, and not
want to confront things. A person is weak to the degree that he has allowed
his intention to be blunted and strong to the degree that his intention is
free.

Thetans become worried about and hold back their intentions because they
have been convinced that their intentions are out of their control and that
they can cause bad effects as a result. If you asked a PC, "What intentions
do you have to keep under wraps?", you would get a roaring automaticity.

Scientology can get ahead partly because people attacking scientology
have no idea what our intentions are. "A world of no wars, no insanity, etc."
is very unreal to them. They think, "That couldn't be their real intention,"
so they attack nonexistent intentions, which is why they come off looking like
asses. If a case is recovering, he is really just removing his blunted
intentions, i.e. he is removing the obstacles that he has put there or agreed
to.

A doingness intention has time added to it. Therefore it is tied into
the cycle of action. A pure intention doesn't necessarily involve time or a
cycle of action, or space. You could make an intention in the past, present,
or future. Time and space are the result of intention, which is senior to
them. As a PC comes downscale to "normal" levels, though, his agreement with
a cycle of action results in the disappearance of his intention out of the
cycle of action. If you take someone who is having a terrible time, you can
show him cycles of action, with short-sessioning, CCH's, etc. Eventually his
own intentions start to free up out of the MESTiness of it all. The only way
the auditor can foul this up is to leave his own cycles of action incomplete.

If we are going to have wins, we must validate analytical intention,
knock out dramatizations, and complete cycles of action, by flattening
processes, within the reality of the process involved, and in accordance with
how much is there to be flattened. If you can get an auditing cycle
completed, you will get a win. If you don't, you will get a lose. It is that
simple.