6208C21 SHSpec-188 Basics of Auditing Auditors keep asking LRH for rules and more rules. Then they goof in session and ask for more. It is strange that fundamentals usually come at high levels of training. Here is what an auditor should be able to do: He should be able to get another being to be interested in his own case and willing to talk to him. Rules, tricks, rudiments, and various other types of upset-preventers are all contributive to getting this to occur. The E-meter is only contributive insofar as it applies to rudiments. It is vital for assessing. In rudiments, you are trying to do with rules and the meter something that you cannot do yourself. This won't work. Some auditors have only to sit down in the chair to have the PC ARC break. This is more true now than ever. The difficulties the auditor encounters are his own difficulties, and the mechanics he uses force the PC into session with an auditor who doesn't want the PC in session or who doesn't understand that the PC should be in session or why the PC should be in session. The mechanics of rudiments and rules have made auditing so powerful that the PC is put into a state where he is interested in his case and wants to talk to the auditor. But the auditor thinks he is supposed to do something else and drives the PC out of session again. So the PC ARC breaks. The auditor looks like an auditor and the rules trick the PC into session. Then the PC finds that the auditor doesn't want to hear what he is saying. The auditor is auditing by some set of rules. In fact, there is no auditor, but the technology has created a PC. This drives the PC around the bend. The PC doesn't know what is wrong, but he feels that something is wrong. We have been blaming meter reading, missing reads. This is just another technical rule. Someone who understood the basics of auditing and used them could miss reads and clean cleans and still have a PC happily in session. But someone who cleans cleans and misses reads must be auditing, not by basics, but by rules that force a PC into session. If there is no auditor but only rules and a meter, the rules may be right and the meter wrong. There is nothing else holding the PC in session, so he gets upset. If the auditor is not there and he misses something, it is curtains. So it is very necessary to know what the basics of auditing are. The remedy for the above situation is that people are going to learn to prepcheck and to put ruds in without meters and to do this accurately. This will make auditors. They can do it because they will learn the basics of auditing. Why does auditing exist at all? There are two articles in Certainty magazine (1958) that take apart what psychoanalysis did wrong. Anyone that went into session in analysis did so accidentally. Basically, the analysand never had an auditor. He was also never brought back to PT at the end of session. The basics of auditing include the mechanics of blowing something -- the reason why auditing works (Axiom 51). One underlying thread is the principle that after a session, a PC should feel better. Even an awful goals assessment session that missed the goal should end up with the PC feeling better. Secondly, the auditor must get off the PC's withholds. The earliest part of auditing is the roughest part, since all the missed withholds of life are still sitting there unrelieved. It takes a far better auditor to handle such a case than to handle someone who has come up the line a ways. Scientologists are not really harder to audit than raw meat, especially raw meat that hasn't ever reached for anything. You would be surprised, though, at who can go into session and who can be audited. Once, in Detroit, the cops seized some tapes. Fourteen cops listened to them, and twelve resigned from the force! An auditor should be able to handle the PC's problems and to get a clean needle so that the PC can be assessed and made to feel better. An auditor should audit to get things done in a session, not just to audit. Auditing consists of getting something done by a series of little accomplishments, not by going through the motions. You should be able to get a PC into session without a meter, rules, or anything. Some people have a gift for this. An auditor should be able to let the PC blow something by talking to him. You would be surprised how rare this is. You should also be able to get done what the PC wants done, without Q and A. People have trouble differentiating between TR-4 and Q and A. An auditor must be able to make this distinction. He must handle the session and do things the PC wants done without Q and A. You have to work at it, to get in trouble with this. Q and A is simple: 1. Not accepting the PC's answer; questioning the PC's answer. Auditing isn't done by rules but by understanding. People who Q and A don't want the PC to talk to them. They use a remark, a comment, or a request for more information to prevent the PC from just saying something and blowing the charge. Or the auditor doesn't acknowledge. This is a defensive mechanism. 2. Doing something every time the PC says something. An auditor who always does what the PC says will drive the PC crazy. An auditor who audits strictly by rules and not by understanding will never do anything a PC says, no matter how reasonable or sensible it is, which also drives the PC crazy. There are two things that PCs do: 1. They ask auditors to do things such that if the auditor doesn't do them, the session will go around the bend. 2. They originate. Auditors who are having a hard time with PCs never differentiate between these two situations. They don't evaluate importances. They try to follow all the rules instead of helping the PC. You don't take up the process that the PC wants run or the goal which the PC asserts but which doesn't check out. On the other hand, you don't ignore it when the PC says, "This room is so hot that I am melting!" Open the damn window! There is no substitute for understanding and a feeling of humanness. Obnose! Why does auditing work? It bothers someone to be the only one who knows something. He feels better when someone else can see it too. He doesn't like to have only his attention on something. It bothers him to have to keep it from other people. When he puts something out and lets someone else see it, and the person says that he has seen it, and nothing else happens, Axiom 10 hasn't fired. The catastrophic effect he expected hasn't been produced. Auditing of withholds blows the PC's certainty of consequences. He gets off a gross overt that he knew would kill him if anyone else ever found out about it, and there is no consequence. The only thing that happened was ventilation. Having gotten off the withhold, the PC finds himself with his attention freed up from that subject. Before, it was stuck on keeping it withheld. So he drops it like a hot potato. Without going into the mechanics of as-ising, we can say this: If the horrible consequences that the PC expected, on getting off a withhold, don't materialize, his previously fixed attention is freed up. Auditors have interesting methods of preventing PCs from blowing things. They use the meter. They do something every time the PC originates. If the auditor always does something or asks another question about it, the PC isn't allowed to blow anything. Auditing works because the PC blows things. If he isn't allowed to blow things, he will blow up. The point is to audit the PC, not to go through a drill. Auditors should be able to clean up a dirty needle. They should be able to prepcheck, simply using PC indicators to establish cleanness of the question. But don't try to assess goals without one. If rules get in your way, you probably don't understand the rules. The reason for this emphasis is that 3GA requires a superb auditor, if it is to be done rapidly.