MODEL SESSION II, read this one
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Tue Mar 27 22:52:06 EDT 2018
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
MODEL SESSION II
03/27/18 Tuesday 10:51pm EST Revised
Model session II is a squirrel adaptation of standard tech model
session as originally published by LRH to make it easier to deal with
dog auditors auditing dog pcs.
Historically the auditor takes full responsibility for the session
so that he can return full responsibility to the preclear.
The preclear comes into session being controlled by everything and
anything other than himself. He is a spew machine.
The auditor takes CONTROL over the preclear in order to return
control over the preclear back to himself, leaving the spew machine out
Model session II simply returns responsibility back to the preclear
earlier than might be expected.
Rather than the auditor going 'Row!, Row!, Row!' and the preclear
going 'Nope!, Nah!, Forget it!', in model session II the auditor goes
"Row!", then the preclear goes "OK!, then the auditor goes "Thank you,
Row!", the preclear goes "OK!" until both are handing the session back
and forth to each other with out either one going out of session.
Out of session means not in session.
In session for the auditor is being interested in the preclear's
case, willing to audit the preclear and follow the auditor's code.
In session for the preclear is being interested in his own case,
willing to talk to the auditor and follow the preclear's code.
The auditor's code is pretty well laid out in standard tech, the
preclear's code not so much.
Notice handing control back and forth between auditor and preclear
is NOT the same thing as the auditor trying to put the pc in session,
then the pc turning it around and trying to put the auditor in session!
That's a high crime on the part of both auditor and preclear.
Auditor: "Tell me about mother!"
Preclear: "Yak yak yak, OK, now tell me about your mother!"
Auditor: "Oh yes well she is kind of like your mother!"
Auditors or preclears that allow that to happen should both be
shown the garbage pail out back.
In model session II the auditor is going "Ok here is the command"
and the preclear is goes 'Yak yak yak, OK give me the next command".
That's very different than the preclear going "OK, here is the next
command" back to the auditor.
The auditor is always free to NOT give the next command if he
thinks the preclear has more to see or say on the present command. But
if the preclear does say more, there has to be another OK! on the part
of the preclear before the auditor can continue with the next command.
When the preclear is out of session or trying to put the auditor in
session he is reaching to create an outflow to the auditor to give the
auditor the command.
When the preclear is in session he is reaching to create an inflow
from the auditor of the next command.
The preclear keeps HIMSELF in session by being forced IN EVERY
COMMAND to put the auditor there along with the process and the purpose
of being in session. All the preclear has to do is say "OK" before the
auditor gives the next command. Then you have model session II.
By saying OK the preclear is requesting, even demanding of the
auditor to give him the next command, if the auditor fails to do so or
does something else, the session will go to hell.
The preclear is asking for the next command even if he knows what
it is, because two way comm is important, as is the impingement of the
auditor on the preclear and his composite existence.
There are 4 basic differences between standard model session and
model session II.
1.) TWO WAY CONTROL OF THE SESSION WITH OK
The preclear acknowledges he is done with each command and wishes
the next command to be given by saying "OK". The auditor does not speak
until the preclear says OK, except to give basic session TR's.
This in no way obviates the auditor's responsibilities to handle
the session with standard TR's (Training Routines) so if the auditor
sees something going on with the preclear the auditor is allowed, if not
required, to use standard TR's to query and handle it until he gets the
OK from the preclear to go on with session.
When a command is given to a preclear he naturally introverts for a
moment while executing the command or looking for an answer. Then as
charge comes off, he yaks, cognites and starts to extrovert. When the
auditor sees the extroversion he is supposed to give the next command.
But sometimes a preclear is so introverted anyhow, that it is hard
for the auditor to tell when a preclear is truly ready for the next
command, or the preclear will suddenly start talking again just as the
auditor gives the next command and thus gets this comm chopped to no
In model session I (one), this problem is rampant, the auditor
waits too long in fear of the preclear not being done yet, or not long
After a few runs with model session II, this problem pretty much
goes away, and if the preclears says OK, and changes his mind suddenly
afterwards, that's ok, he can take full responsibility for the chop, as
he chopped the auditor, and he won't build up charge on the auditor or
It becomes 'his fault' that his comm was chopped not the auditor's.
This does wonders to maintain easy ARC in the session even when the
session material itself is rough as sin.
One thing some preclears may do is figure that since they are
paying for the session time, they should get as many commands in as
possible for the session. Thus they will chop their own comm and cogs
by saying OK before they are really ready.
The auditor with a good e-meter has to watch out for this, he can
tell the preclear is doing it as the meter will stop reading as the
session goes out of sync for tick tocking too fast in relation to the
The preclear fails to see that the quiet time during a command is
actually charge releasing time, and that case gain is the result not of
how many commands are run but how deep each command runs.
The speed of session is determined ahead of time by the natural
rhythm of the tick-tock of the material and charge being audited, any
effort to change that speed will result in the auditor going out of sync
with the preclear's bank, and no material coming forward and no charge
being released. Needle activity will be a dirty rise or stuck, and
certainly no more TA.
Sessions can be slowed down by auditor going in and out of sync
with the preclear and recovering forward momentum again and again, but
sessions can't run faster than their natural rhythm.
2.) COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRECLEAR IS NOT REQUIRED
The preclear does not have to SAY anything in response to the
command. Thus auditing with questions or 'Tell me' that demand a
response will not work. Auditing with "Get the idea of" or "Spot" are
Model session II will not work with any auditing that REQUIRES two
way communication from the preclear.
Auditor: "Tell me about mother"
Auditor: "Thankyou, Tell me about mother"
Well that's a flunk because the preclear didn't actually execute
the command as given, and the auditor allowed him to get away with it
without proper TRing the non repsonse.
Auditor: "Get the idea of a mother"
Auditor: "Thank you, Get the idea of a mother"
Or even "Get the idea of something you could say about mother."
Notice the preclear doesn't have to SAY it!
This works well and doesn't force the preclear to come up with
something to say about mother that doesn't interest him at the moment.
Constantly having to manufacture something to say causes huge amounts of
charge and later session dread.
2WC is useful and it does help if the preclear is willing to speak
or move his throat but it is not necessary and, on rough cases, knowing
that you have to SPEAK will kill the session out of the gate.
When the preclear gets to something that is making real TA, not
just small reads, he will speak, I assure you.
Notice not having to speak means the preclear does not have to give
up withholds, nor even say that he has withholds.
Remember total reponsibility is the ABILITY TO WITHHOLD.
That's a relief isn't it.
Auditing over a withhold slows things down, the preclear will know
this, but auditing over a dangerous auditor will stop things cold. This
has little to do with the auditor's ability to make a safe space, but
has everything to do with the preclear's considerations about the
auditor, whether the auditor is God in carnation or not.
In the beginning the preclear will see the auditor through the
The auditor can run "Who am I?" on the preclear until the cows come
home, on many to some avail, but on others to no avail at all.
The preclear will see his Nemesis One in everything that originates
attention. He will wonder, he will be nervous and he will dread every
withhold he has or knows everyone else has too.
That is in part why Dianetics ran motivators flow 1 only, the
withhold problem was just too much for the broad general public to
Model session II requires all flows be run plus some, but the
preclear is left with the option to not say what the withhold is even if
while running earlier similars on it!
Notice preclears will be able to withhold on all flows, even what
was done to him!
Let him, just get the OK out of him and continue until needle is
clean or floats. The withhold does not have to be revealed to get a
clean needle, the preclear does have to take full responsibility for
having the withhold and withholding it, and having an auditor that is
not totally safe to talk to yet, and all this has to be totally OK with
So he says "OK!". You see?
That might seem really strange to a standard techie, they will look
at it for a LONG time, but try it, you will like it.
You can always go back to being a standard tech nazi.
"You vill answer me!"
Getting every question answered is nuts as long as charge is not
bypassed into an ARC break due to non communication.
What are you going to do with some military guy with top
secret clearance? They need auditing too you know.
Auditor's are always asking questions of preclears that the
preclear has no clue what the answer is and the bank is not talking
I mean who or what answers these questions anyhow? Most auditor's
haven't a clue on that matter.
It's also OK for the preclear to say he HAS a withhold, but that he
intends to not talk about it. That way no pretense is created that
there are no withholds when there are.
One might think that the core of the preclear's case is right there
in what he is unwilling to speak about, but that just isn't true. Once
he does find his core, he will speak fully and he will dump all the
other stuff too, if there is any charge left on it.
And if the auditor pukes, gasps and dies with a 'Well I never!",
the preclear will jump for joy over the auditor's dead body and throw a
champagne party for the auditor that night.
All preclears come into session embroiled with blame, shame and
regret, sometimes for things they are doing wrong INTENTIONALLY, just to
cause themselves trouble, so there will be lots to not speak about.
We can't let all that get in the way of auditing taking place, even
on withholds he is mostly willing to talk about.
The problem is NOT not speaking, the problem is not knowing due to
fear of find out, the preclear finding out about himself.
It is beyond ludicrous to claim that the preclear can't find out
about himself without the auditor finding out about it too.
Or a preclear can give up all their withholds, have a change of
auditor, and all the charge comes right back and he has to do it all
over again with someone new that he doesn't know and trust.
Lack of trust will undo all case gain and the preclear will be
starting all over just to test the new auditor.
Finding an auditor you trust absolutely as if they were you
is probably almost impossible, at least at the beginning.
PRECLEARS HATE THIS
Preclears dread that this WILL happen, so they protect against it
by just not talking about something they are unwilling to talk about
again to another. Its just too dangerous.
Sometimes a preclear faces a new auditor with an assumption of
trust, and that the auditor has thoroughly read his preclear files
including all divulged withholds, but usually this isn't true.
But in any case this assumed trust is not at all the same thing as
ESTABLISHED trust built up over years of experience with a particular
So the preclear is always looking at what they are giving up,
asking themselves if I give up this withhold now, will I have to give it
up all over again if I get a change of auditor?
How safe is this auditor?
How safe will the NEXT one be?
If the preclear is down at the bottom of the self degradation
ladder he KNOWS that every word out of his mouth will sorely test the
auditor's confront and acceptance levels.
"You ate what?!"
An auditor looks like a mine field to a preclear, the preclear does
want to talk freely, but doesn't really expect to find a truly perfect
safe space, so he has to tread carefully when going into the less
creditable subjects of his life. Worrying about having to give up
withholds will stop a session cold as he will try to audit around them.
The best way to handle it is for the preclear to say, 'Gotta
withhold, its off limits, let's continue, OK.'
Auditor writes it down, the preclear is no longer withholding that
he is withholding, and the session can proceed smoothly.
The more often the preclear says he is withholding something, the
better off he will be, and the auditor can query once in a while if the
preclear wants to get anything off on withholds already noted, or if new
ones are in the queue.
And for the record the more to basic withholds are taken in
session the less the preclear will give a damn who knows about it
later. But more auditor's are not that good.
If a withhold is *ERASED* well then yeah, the preclear won't
remember it at all, its as if it never happened.
But if a withhold is only keyed out, watch out, its still there and
mean as hell on people with no confront probing to find out what it is.
Note do not expect the preclear to finally divulge all on
everything, it isn't necessary, it may be better off for everyone if he
doesn't, and much of it will be unimportant once Nemesis One is
identified, contacted approached and eradicated.
If the sessions are going directly towards Nemesis One,
then the auditor will be socketed in the preclears worries AS
Once a preclear finds his Nemesis One, he won't care who knows what
he did or happened, he just won't, too much power to care about what
The preclear will WANT to get those withholds off, as he took great
satisfaction in committing them the first time, and would do it again.
Withholds are GPM based, and once a GPM is blown there ARE no more
withholds on that GPM even if they were never discussed at all.
Forcing the preclear to find OTHER withholds will only cause him to
jump GPMS into a chain that is not ready to be run. or into GPMS that
are not his, which seriously lowered his self esteem and willingness to
let others know.
Have the preclear get the idea of someone saying 'You did WHAT?!'
It's unauditable except maybe even as an overt, the preclear doing it to
If the preclear worries about the auditor having such a reaction to
something he reveals, he is REALLY WITH THE WRONG AUDITOR whom the
preclear has pegged as his own Nemesis One.
AND THE AUDITOR ISN'T, WHICH IS WHY ITS SUCH A CRUSH ON THE
PRECLEAR TO AUDIT IT.
His real Nemesis One would never take such a tactic, which is why
the whole shame chain is unauditable.
It's a wrong item.
Remember the preclear's true Nemesis One is a worthy opponent, if
the auditor is coming across to the preclear as feeling the preclear is
an unworthy preclear, the AUDITOR needs to go to cramming to learn how
to find a correct why, item, terminal, goal or chain.
The motto of both the auditor and the preclear should always be,
"Present Time Truncated GPM or bust!"
Most everything else is really bad auditing.
Thus during later sessions, the auditor is NOT prodding the
preclear to clear up all these noted but incomplete reveals, just
reminding him he has an opporunity to do so if he has changed his mind
through later auditing.
This comes through good auditing (on item auditing rather than off
item auditing) where the preclear's trust in the auditor, AND THE
AUDITOR'S TRUST IN THE QUALITY OF THE BEING OF THE PERCLEAR, is
established and the preclear is more aligned with his true Nemesis One
item, because the preclear is PROUD of his overts against this monster.
Auditing shame is a waste of time as it audits the preclear at
dispicable effect where no one could ever live it down.
What he tried to do to the monster was noble, he fell into shame
when he started feeling sorry for the beast, the poor dear.
There are many things the preclear WANTS to reveal he doesn't feel
safe about, so later in auditing he will suddenly be itching to clean up
these things, sometimes en masse.
Sometimes just to get his final revenge and enjoy watching the
Sometimes the preclear may begin to feel that these withholds that
he is indicating to be left unrevealed, are beginning to weigh him down
and stop case gain.
This is caused by another phenomenon wherein the preclear feels he
is not approaching his Nemesis One properly or at all, and begins to
think the auditor is incapable of get him to do so because the auditor
himself has not handled his own Nemesis One.
The preclear fears that the auditor fears that the preclear is the
auditor's Nemesis One or otherwise so beneath contempt as a being, that
the auditor will hate himself for wasting his time trying to help this
The preclear fears the auditor's barf reaction, or pin headed
He is tired off sending the auditor into shock, and having to coax
the auditor back into auditing him again.
"I promise I will be less blunt next time!"
And the auditor knows he can't confront anything either and is
terrified the preclear will finally bring up something that makes the
auditor burn up from the inside out.
This is going to be rampant with newbie duals, but assessing for
'insuffcient approach to Nemesis One' or something similar will start to
clean it up between the two of them.
Because once the true travail is known, both preclear and
auditor will be proud of what the other did to destroy the monsters.
And funny as hell, as ludicrosity seems to power the game.
Dual auditors have to KNOW that they both scare the hell out of
each other but that both have equal courage levels to drive each other
home to where they need to be to go free of self terror.
That should be sufficient for dual auditing to take place, for
trust to become established, without anyone knowing what GPMS or
terminals are involved for the time being.
Hey life is an XXX rated game, you want spoilers already?
The auditor tells the preclear up front the rules of Model Session
II, one of which is if the preclear feels uncomfortable talking about
something, he can either simply not talk about it with no further
indication to the auditor, or he can indicate there is something he
doesn't want to talk about and leave it at that.
The auditor must promise not to coax either overtly or covertly,
preclear doesn't want to talk about it, that's the end of it, auditor
isn't interested in it any more.
Responsibility is the ABILITY TO WITHHOLD.
The auditor needs to take the win, something the nazi
technician will never know.
If the needle is dirty the auditor is allowed to ask is there
something MORE to what you are not telling me until the preclear has a
clear idea of what he is withholding, but he doesn't have to reveal any
of it. The needle however has to be clean.
The needle will go clean on responsibly withholding.
The auditor can even indicate it.
"I would like to indicate you are responsibly withholding on
BEING ABLE TO withhold is one sign of taking responsibility for
one's own condition and being forced to give up withholds destroys the
That's why you run havingness on a preclear who has been put the
nazi wringer of auditing withholds. Some of the best havingness
"Get the idea of something you would be willing to NOT withhold."
"Get the idea of something you would be willing to withhold."
These rules will make the preclear very willing to talk about
everything else forthwith, but may end up in a stop later when the only
thing left to talk about are the secrets of pride slides, failure, death
pity, accountability, shame, blame and regret
At that point the preclear should know enough about the auditor to
determine if the auditor is a safe space or not, and if the preclear
really decides no, it is probably time for auditor and preclear to part
A safe space does not mean simply that the auditor doesn't say
things about what the preclear has said or done, or hides his reactions
and revulsion successfully, it means the auditor has no thoughts or
feelings on the matter at all.
Except maybe awe and admiration and high appreciation for ludicrous
If the auditor pukes, that's a flunk.
If the auditor can't stop laughing, well...
The difference between blame and responsibility is subtle,
responsibility is putting it there with no added significance, blame is
having put something there but shouldn't have ...
An auditor stifling "You did WHAT?!" is not a safe space.
Auditing serial killers can be hard.
"Well I understand murdering the girl, but did you really have
AUDIT CAUSAL CONCEPTION ONLY
3.) Auditing processes are ALWAYS commands and never questions.
The standard process is "Get the idea of" or maybe "Spot ..." or
"Locate..." if the preclear prefers it.
Questions kill. Higher level cases can handle them, lower levels
will say "I don't know" and take a loss on the command.
In dementia cases we showed that asking the preclear for a direct
memory did not work, because access to the memory was not there.
Auditor: "Remember your childhood dog."
Preclear: "Never had one..."
But when using creative processing (causal conception) with "Get
the idea of a dog", the dementia case can do that all day long, describe
it in detail and his own dogs will show up with great certainty.
Memory is always there, accessibility is not.
So the way into an inaccessible memory is get the preclear to
mockup similar items creatively until memories start to turn on.
They will have full 3D surround sound experiences of their dog turn
on, down to the color of the collar and the sound of its bark, and every
kid it ever bit or chased.
But grab it while you can, because when the accessibility closes up
again, the preclear will be back to being a "What dog?" case.
4.) ALWAYS RUN THE DICOM PER THE DICOM PROCESS.
THE DICOM PROCESS
Sometimes processes have to be converted into a model session II
Consider the following process.
"What condition is there?"
"What purpose does it serve?"
"What are you trying to do about it?"
So we convert it first to standard command format:
"Get the idea of having a condition."
"Get the idea it might serve a purpose."
"Get the idea of trying to do something about it."
Notice the command does not ask for an existing condition or even a
condition the preclear has at all.
This is pure creative processing at its best.
Then we put in the dicom:
"Get the idea of not having a condition."
"Get the idea it not serving a purpose."
"Get the idea of not trying to do something about it."
You may have to spend some time with the preclear adjusting the
commands to his taste.
He will start running his central core condition mighty quick.
If the auditor can stomach it.
The preclear always knows when the auditor is about to barf,
probably from subtle changes in the color of his face, like turning
green or black :)
ADDENDUM TO MODEL SESSION II
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Mar 27 22:52:05 EDT 2018
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L