The emphasis should be on handling (auditing) the REASONS WHY someone may be withholding something not on WHAT they may be withholding.
Is there anything you do not want known about you? or Think of something you do not want known about you.
Once the PC gives a confirmation “okay,” ask:
WHO should not know about it? Who else should not know about it?
If the PC doesn’t brighten up on this, ask:
WHAT do you think could/would HAPPEN if this was known?
The aim is to bring the PC up to a state of increased responsibility for the people that he or she is withholding from and/or whatever events the PC thinks may take place if the withhold was revealed. The aim is to make the PC more self-determined with respect to withholding, not in somehow forcing the PC to share the information despite his or her considerations that he or she should not. The purpose of auditing should be rehabilitation of PC’s self-determinism, not breaking it.
Most likely the PC will start sharing the withhold upon addressing (auditing out) the reasons why he or she shouldn’t and that’s okay, but the goal, again, is not to get the PC to share but to help the PC recognize and get at cause over the reasons why he or she needs to make an effort to withhold something.
Depending on what happens, you can also ask:
Get an idea __the named person(s)__ already know(s) about it. Or
Get an idea __the named event(s)__ already happened.
This is an additional step to place the PC at cause over the reality he or she is trying to prevent.
Another good question that could be asked is something like:
What do you NOT want to happen as a result of this being known (or __the named terminal__ finding out)?
The PC could say something like: “I don’t want to be judged.” or “I don’t want to be beaten.” or “get fired from work.” or even “I don’t want to be killed.” or “executed.”
Then this should become an area of address:
Could you recall a time when someone judged you?
Could you recall a time when you judged someone?
This is on Confront and Create alternating basis.
You basically run (audit) what presents itself just as was recommended in Book One (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health).
If someone says “killed” or “executed” – you would obviously be stepping into a past life situation, and that’s okay. If the charge presented itself, it is ready to be addressed.
The danger of “pulling withholds” without handling the reasons why the preclear is withholding, that is, simply persuading or somehow pressuring the preclear to just confess:
– The charge is likely to collapse on the PC. So say if a PC thought he was going to be killed if the withhold was revealed, the PC may begin struggling with an acute sense of apprehension or paranoia about someone coming after him and may get symptoms of “keyed-in” (restimulated) past death incidents such as struggling with somatics where he was shot or stabbed or poisoned or whatever it was that killed the PC in a past life.
– The PC may indeed feel “liberated” but that sense of “liberation” will get attached to the recipient(s) of PC’s communication as the only person(s) with whom the PC can truly be oneself and communicate since the reasons why the PC was withholding with respect to other persons outside of the “communication cycle” were not handled. This could lead to a sense of greater alienation from those “on the outside” and spiritual isolation into a cult-like atmosphere.