Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Actually what you describe is a clear case of a non-standard session: the pc is clearly NOT in session.
Mark A. Baker
L's Tech
- Thread starter Terril park
- Start date
Actually what you describe is a clear case of a non-standard session: the pc is clearly NOT in session.
Mark A. Baker
One of the key stable datums for an auditor or C/S is that he should always parallel the bank. It is a stable datum that has certainly worked for me over many years.
While it is perferctly true that the new preclear is NOT the effect of his past he does not see things this way. Once he goes up the bridge and has his case handled then sure, he'll acknowledge that he never was the efect of the past in the first place. But while he is still mired in his bank this is how most people see their present state.
So aclever C/S will not impose his "reality" of the past not affecting one on this preclear, but will program him according to the preclear's own realioty level and let him reach his own conclusion about where his toubles stem from.
Once he is free from this fixed idea then - no more Dianetics for him.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Yeah! I mean, what kind of session would it be if all people did was discuss how things should be done? Hell, if I were C/Sing it I'd be looking for missed withholds, if not actual out ruds, too!
Alan
Gold Meritorious Patron
Guess, that is why your not C/Sing!
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
No, actually, it's not why, but thanks for yet another gratuitous and extraneous dig regarding my ability to practice tech.
Sorry, but as far as anyone I know who's tech trained is concerned, we all think that a pc should be talking about his case in session. If he has any sort of out ruds or anything else that makes him go on and on about his auditor then that would definitely get remarked upon by any CS worth his or her salt.
Sorry, but as far as anyone I know who's tech trained is concerned, we all think that a pc should be talking about his case in session. If he has any sort of out ruds or anything else that makes him go on and on about his auditor then that would definitely get remarked upon by any CS worth his or her salt.
Alan
Gold Meritorious Patron
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
Some expect the client to talk about his life in session!
That seems sort of covertly hostile Alan.
Yes literally, you are just declaring a truth, but the implication is that Claire would not expect the client to talk about their life in session, which is not the point she was making.
Perhaps when people like Claire and I are not subject to your subtle putdowns, we will then know you have handled you BPC on scientology.
alex
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Some expect the client to talk about his life in session!
I would expect someone to talk about the auditing questions and the emotional and spiritual issues that those auditing questions touched upon. I myself am passionately interested in books, jewelry, new clothes but I don't mention those things much or for very long (if ever) in an auditing session. So if you have someone going on and on about other things, either something's wrong with the C/Sing, the auditing or something's going on with the pc that should not be going on. Either way, Mark's right.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
When I first left CofS, Alan came into a chat room I was in and was quite kind to me. Since then and due to things people have told me and some research I did, I have recommended to people that they look into Knowledgism. I still do that.
However, Alan has made a number of jabs here in the past year and a half or so about my training background and character. This has not stopped me from continuing to recommend him as a terminal to whomever may be interested. I do that with Hubbard and his stuff, too, and I know Hubbard wouldn't have been too nice to me if he knew me as I am now.
