Thetan, Accepting All As Truth, Falls Prey to Ills (continued)

ways start off with one of these two questions, because the only reason he's got what he's got is because if he didn't have it, he thinks he'd have something worse somewhere along the line.

When we get his idea of what would happen to him if he didn't have the problem, we try to get his considerations about the things he thinks would happen to him if he didn't have the problem. If necessary, we delve into it deeper by asking: "Who had the problem? When? When was then? When is now?" Let's don't go into the past very much, but get the fastest answer he can give you.

Suppose you ask, "Who had this problem?

And he replies, "Father."

"O. K. When did Father have it; the first answer that comes into your mind?"

"I was two."

"O.K. Who had the problem then?"

"Father."

"Who has it now?"

"I do."

"When was then? ... When is now?...When was then? ... When is now?... Who had the problem then? ... Did that give you a reason to have it then... Does that give you a reason to have it now?...And how does that seem to you now?...How do you feel about it now?... Who was it had it then? ... And who has it now?...Do you have a reason to have it now?...Do you REALLY have a reason to have it now?...How do you feel about that consideration?"

You see, you're always asking the person to look at his PRESENT TIME considerations -- and then choose whether he wants to change them or not. Does he still have a reason to have it? 0. K. If he does, let him have it. We don't care. And we don't care from where he thinks, or where he gets his answers, or anything else.

You also pick up counter-considerations. You ask the pre-clear, and find out Father had the condition then and you say, "Well, how did Father feel about that? Now, let's don't get the idea of what we think Father thought or felt, or how Father acted like he thought or felt. The first thing you think of -- how did Father feel about that?"

"Well, he thought I was a little dickens," or something like that.

You see, it isn't important what Father really thought, but what the pre-clear thought Father thought -- or considered father considered. We all know that we think people are thinking things about us when they're not thinking that at all -- but that is the thing that bothers the pre-clear; what he thinks the person is thinking or feeling, and not what the person is ACTUALLY thinking or feeling. That gets the pre-clear out of the other fellow's universe, as we have known this problem to be; he looks at his consideration of what the other fellow's consideration was, and pretty soon he will tell you exactly what the other fellow's REAL considerations were. It wasn't what he had considered it to be all along, at all. And that is interesting because it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we all know what the other fellow is thinking -- whether we know we know or not.

Another thing we want to get in there in addition to our counter-considerations is reason -- and when (then and now). You can run past lives that way, and you can run other planets that way -- but I always wind up running the condition on THIS planet.

Perhaps the pre-clear says, "Well I was killed in a space ship that crashed on Earth."

You ask "When was that?" The first number that comes into his mind. Then you ask, "When is now?...When was then?... When is now?...Where were you then?... Where are you now?"...And if necessary: "What were you wearing then?" First thing that comes into his mind; you don't care whether it's true or not. Soon he will be pretty well present right there in the room with you.

That seems to be about the gimmick of the whole thing. On com. lags, as I told you earlier, I don't wait for them. If the pre-clear starts just sitting there trying to figure out an answer -- well, if he figures more than 30 seconds for an answer, I wouldn't accept it anyway. I won't accept that in real life, either.

One of the very important things to run is the person allowing the other person the right to be right for himself in present time. This does not mean he is going to allow that person to do what the

About the Author

THIS is the second article on processing "Considerations" by Pearl Hennick, D.D., of Phoenix, who is getting excellent results with this technique, and reports of equally rapid success from others who have listened to the tape from which this article was transcribed. In a later article, Mrs. Hennick will show that the thetan -- the one that can "be three feet behind a head" -- is not the optimum being, but only a level slightly above MEST; that in processing for a theta clear, one is merely trying to trade one agreement for anothr. -- EDITOR.