From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 20 - January 1995

See Home Page at

New Session Actions

by Bob Ross, USA

HERE ARE TWO new session actions. Both aimed at getting a PC well
into a productive session.

First is a new rudiment, second is a way to get a blown-out PC back
in session.

A new rudiment

The first action is a new way to establish sessionability for a
It deserves to be called a new rudiment. This new rudiment is the
havingness rudiment. It is a repair of havingness by a method
which so far has worked on almost all PCs I have tried it on.

This new rudiment acts to clear the decks of all PTPs thus
enabling a PC to focus on what really needs to be handled.

Remedying havingness for the PC prior to the body of the session
the PC to more easily let go of bank masses. It may also be used
the session as a random rudiment any time it seems likely to be

This new rudiment acts like a universal havingness process, with
an easily spotted end point. I have no idea what meter phenomena go
with this as I have never used it on a meter. I have had the
process complete itself on one or two commands with some PCs and after
as much as twenty minutes with another. The length of time it takes,
seems to depend on how low the PC's havingness is rather than on any
other factor.

Acceptance level

This new rudiment embodies the concept of acceptance level. Ron
had said that when you get the PC's acceptance level in mock up
the PC can't help but get pictures.

About 1959 an auditor in New York City told me, of a pc he was
running, who had trouble getting mockups. He used acceptance level
on her by asking for more and more degraded mock ups. She didn't get
any pictures until he said, 'Get a picture of yourself lying naked
in mud and filth in the gutter, with a man taking a shit on top of
you. Did you get that picture? ' She responded, 'How could
anyone fail to get a picture like that.' He had finally hit her
acceptance level.

It was necessary for him to be quite clever and understanding to
this. My new rud does not require such cleverness on the part
of the auditor, just perseverance and a little bit of understanding.

The patter

The rudiment process consists of a single repetitive question
modified slightly from one time to the next as appropriate.

Start by asking the PC to briefly state some undesirable condition
or problem the PC considers he has.

Take as long as or as short a time on this step as it takes. Any
at all will work as long as it is something the PC doesn't want.
As I prefer a highly focused answer rather than a vague one, if a
PC gives me a a long involved answer, I usually ask the PC to restate
the problem in fewer words. This gives the PC another look
at the problem. Sometimes the PC will end up with a one word answer.
Whatever answer I get, I then ask:  'How could that be worse?'

When I get an answer to that, I ask, as seems to me appropriate, 'How
could that be worse?' (meaning pc's last answer) 'What
could be worse than that?' 'Could anything be worse
than that?'  'Is that the worst possible condition
you can think of?'

When a PC can't think of anything worse, but I can, I'll suggest some
of the things I think could be worse. This often stimulates the PCs
to find worse things of their own. e.g. I have often asked whether
going to Hell would be worse than being dead, when dead or died was
the last answer, or whether life as a paraplegic might be worse than
being dead. I don't accept 'dead' as the worst possible
condition, unless the PC insists.

Three possible EPs

I have found three possible EPs to the 'Worse?' process.

EP1. The condition blows.

EP2. PC cogs on a personal condition that causes him to have the
he is complaining about. e.g. 'I'm unlovable,' (personal condition)
instead of 'No one loves me.' (environmental condition)

EP3. PC satisfied that his last answer is the worst it could get.


If we get EP1, I ask for a new problem and handle that the same way.

If we get EP2 I run whatever process I consider appropriate to remedy
the condition named.

If we get EP3 I ask the PC to take a fresh look and tell me what the
problem is in terms of a personal condition, rather than in terms
of the environment.

I then handle the named condition, with my choice of procedures.

Coping with zen meditation

The other process concerns zen meditation. When I used the 'Worse
rudiment' described above with 'John,' a recent PC, John
said to me a few minutes into the session, that my questions could
not be answered because the pronouns 'You' 'your'
and 'I' were all meaningless as he was in a Zen trance state
in which there was no self.

Whatever I had asked him about prior to that, had blown on inspection,
but I could not go any further because no matter what I asked him
about, he maintained that my questions could not be answered.

He obviously needed help, both physically and financially, so I did
not give up. His body had already had to have by-pass heart surgery
so it was obvious that his body was in bad shape, and when he came
in he had told me that his finances were only slightly better than
bare survival. That he had come to me at all, showed that he was not
satisfied that Zen meditation, was increasing his survival potential
except perhaps to reduce his level of stress.

He was able to as-is what he looked at, the problem was in getting
him to look at what was obviously there to be looked at.

As I was considering the situation, He remarked that he probably
had a floating Tone Arm, and I agreed that that was probably true.
But, as I don't use a meter when I audit anymore I could not check
on this directly. A couple of weeks later, I heard that Nick Brovcenko
when trying to run 'energetics' on him, had had a similar
experience, and indeed John had had an F/N.


I figured if I could get him to focus on his life problems, I could
do something for him. I have long held the opinion that the best time
to audit someone was right after they had had a big win on a process.
And his state was equivalent to that. When PCs have had a big win
they are most causative and best able to as-is things. Of course it
goes quite against Church doctrine, to audit after a big win.

I also thought that if I can handle him, I should also be able to
help 'clears' and/or 'OTs' which is also contrary to church teachings
on that subject. As they teach that only their upper levels
can be used to help 'clears' and/or 'OTs'.

This is important. I have heard of more than one 'clear' and/or 'OT'
who has died of cancer or other unhealthy bodily conditions, such
as emphysema, because they believed they could only be helped in
the church and either could not afford church prices or were refused
such auditing.

I propose for anyone in a high-toned state capable of as-ising
masses quickly. some variation of the trick that worked on John.

Here is what I did: I asked him 'If I preface my questions with,
'Does John have...'' can answers be found' Were answers available'
He agreed to try. So, I started with, 'What does John ( I actually
used his full name) see as being in the way of having lots of money'
The answer came back immediately, 'disinterest.'

I then worked on 'disinterest' as a postulate using, asking
my questions in the same manner, e.g. 'What reason would John
have to not be interested in having money' By the time I was half
way through my choice process run-down, he was using 'I' in
his answers and answering 'I' this and 'I' that. And
was no longer in the Zen trance or meditation state.

I could see later, that 'disinterest' had led directly
to the Zen meditative state he had been in, which could be described
as a state of extreme disinterest in the world.

For 'clears' and/or 'OTs' I suggest trying the following: 'If
you were not clear, what would be in the way of _____' Or, 'What
decision/choice/ postulate have you made that could have caused
or contributed to the bodies' (or minds') condition'

A procedure for unlessening the not-isness on postulates and so
them to be as-ised, is incorporated into my 'Choice Processing
Procedure'*. It covers both verbal and non-verbal postulates.

*Doc No 158 V12 2 Nov 1994. $60. Includes one hour of auditing over
the phone or in person.
Bob Ross, P.O.B. 91849, Pasadena, CA 91109, U.S.A. Tel. (818)
International money orders are cheaper than bankers draughts and
for me.

Copyright  1994 by B. Robert Ross, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.