6310C15 SHSpec-312 Essentials of Auditing

The relay of information from one mind to another is communication,
education. Therefore, the ARC triangle operates. If you can take effort out
of the comm line, you can normally get a fast, accurate comm line. But when a
comm line loses enough mass, it becomes unstable. That is what happens with a
verbal data line. Sometimes there is data on tapes but not in bulletins.
This is unfortunate, since sometimes there is data in the tapes that could
make all the difference. But you can't hold a duplicatable standard because
it isn't down anywhere in writing. With no-mass data, e.g. verbal data, it
gets altered in the relay. There is always some data that escapes the solid
comm lines, so you can't get all the data. For this reason, you have to
reduce things to their fundamentals, keeping what is important. You can
always have communication of fundamentals, both for educational purposes and
because to reduce something to fundamentals makes one understand it better.

The relay of data from mind A to mind B is susceptible to many
alter-ises. There are almost as many sets of alter-ises as there are minds
for the data to be transferred through. This also occurs on the time-stream.
We probably have very little grip on what was thought in 1800. There was a
tremendous change in manners in the U.S. because of the telephone, movies,
radio, TV, and the automobile. You can overload a comm line by putting too
great a volume of data on it, so that it doesn't communicate. The door to
learning can be shut that way, too. Students sometimes feel overwhelmed by
data and long for some fundamentals. An overloaded comm line is overloaded
because of insufficient time to peruse the material being communicated. You
can also have too little or too varied communication. Scientology's data is
basically research data, at present. It is not yet sifted and clarified into
fundamentals and less fundamental data. We started with the definition of an
auditor as "one who listens and computes". Thirteen years later, it turns out
that "listens" is the fundamental, not the "and computes" which was part of
the original definition. In the meantime, a lot of other data got added
which, in fact, was only added because there was insufficient understanding of
the original definition. There is a datum in the sciences: A subject has
arbitrary data in it in direct proportion to its distance from the actual
comprehension of its basics. So you get into pure opinion and arbitraries, as
in art. There is nothing actually known about a subject when the subject is
nothing but opinion. Opinion present is proportional to knowledge absent.
For instance, when psychological testing requires the opinion of the tester,
you know that nothing is known.

A developmental line is an ambitious, self-critical line which is trying
to achieve a parsimony of information. The data keep condensing and becoming
more fundamental, with importances well evaluated. This evaluation factor is
missing in other philosophies, e.g. that of Krishnamurti. krishnamurti on
"time" is great, but it is not evaluated for importance by him. It isn't true
that you are studying LRH's case. The struggle has been to rise above one's
case and the colorations given by the condition of this planet, etc. This has
been quite successful.

Whenever things get more fundamental, a bucketful of items drop out,
which can make one wonder, "What is stable, from the past?" The stable data
are the Axioms, the Logics, and Prelogics, the fundamental material of the
Philadelphia Lectures, and the behavior of a thetan. The only thing changed
was the idea of exteriorization. What will a person do, when brought to a
point where he doesn't have to be in a body? We used to think that he would
move out of his body. This is not what he will do. He will move his body off
of him, because we have changed him upscale to where he could hold a
position. The Factors, and ARC triangle, and scales of all sorts -- these are
stable.

What has altered is applied technology, not the theory. Better, more
efficient ways of applying the theory have been discovered. It is
re-evaluation of data as applied tech that you are seeing. And because you
are studying to become an auditor, not a theoretician, you need to know
application. What gives you a headache, if anything, is trying to apply the
theory to a case so as to get a result. All your bulletins are addressed to
this subject.

The data that you are using to square away an aberrated student or PC has
to be absolutely, fundamentally true. The Project 80 HCOB [Actually, HCOPL
21Aug63 "Change of Organizational Targets -- Project 80, A Preview", p. 1,
where "Scientology" is defined as "The common people's science of life and
betterment".] drew some criticism because of one phrase: "the common people's
science of the mind". Oddly enough, this is the one inaccurate phrase in the
bulletin. The critics didn't spot that fact. They just objected to the
phrase. The mind tends to fixate on those things that contain an alter-is of
truth. And an alter-is of truth is the thing that most resists the truth of
the situation. It is an aberrated stable datum. Where you have a slightly
altered truth that you try to give to someone who has already got an altered
truth on the same subject, the two will come into conflict, which promotes all
sorts of bad applied technology. It is like trying to drive a truck through a
truck, when you have two alter-ised truths in conflict.

To try to understand an aberrated datum through another aberrated datum
results in complications. So if you are studying a body of data that has any
alteration from the fundamental that should be there, and you have an
alteration that is contrary to the altered datum that you are trying to
assimilate, you get a dog's breakfast. You never look at what is wrong with
the datum that you are trying to assimilate. The conflict won't resolve,
because you have a vested interest in trying to make it fit with an aberrated
datum. You get conflict of aberrated data against each other, overlaid with
opinions.

You have a PC, who is a gold mine of aberrated stable data. If any datum
which you are using to solve that case is the least bit curved, the case won't
resolve, but will develop new complications. Therefore the mass of technology
that grows up in scientology is centered around applied technology. You get
masses of data that subside when a fundamental is clarified. So the greatest
possible truth has to be used in application. Hence research is directed at
finding the clearest fundamental possible. We have gone a long way and have
made great gains, but we still have to cope with the randomity in the person
who is assimilating and trying to apply the data.

"If you, in assimilation of data, are assimilating, to the slightest
degree, data, up against a miscomprehension or an allness, which you are
putting in place of the auditor, you don't get an assimilation. You have
difficulty assimilating the data. But you can assimilate the data. Your
trouble comes when you turn around and take the data you've assimilated and
altered in some fashion, and then try to apply it to the case that is sitting
in front of you. The alter-ises in that data will then bring about a
non-resolution of that case you are confronted with. The only solvent is
truth. Even though absolutes are unobtainable, truth, in a very refined form
-- the purest possible -- is the only thing that will resolve cases all the
way, because it is the one thing that the aberrated case cannot argue with."
Therefore you as an auditor, desiring results, have no business twisting the
technology. There is, fortunately, a considerable zone of tolerance that
permits the tech to work, even when it is imperfectly applied, as long as you
stay within this zone of tolerance. But the tech has to be as nearly perfect
as possible. The tech, heretofore, was too imperfect ever to work. It has
been LRH's task to bring about a recognition of fundamentals that is sufficiently great and a tech that is sufficiently great to overcome a lot of this alter-is. This task is a thousand times greater than the task of simply presenting what is necessary to resolve the case. We have to present if so accurately that the PC can still alter it and the auditor alter it, and still have a resolution of cases. This is an heroic problem.

The amount of difficulty that you have with cases is directly
proportional to the amount of aberration or alter-is that you are adding to
the data that you are trying to apply. It is also [inversely] proportional to
the purity and assimilatability of the material that you are asked to study.
That is a tough one, but it is pretty well handled. The way you solve
solutions is solutions. Wherever LRH has made a little mistake or a wrong
emphasis, there has been trouble, because the additional alter-is added by the
auditor takes it far enough from truth to make it flukey to apply. [LRH, in
describing some horrendous auditing error, says:] "It's a good thing, kids,
that I'm almost indestructible. These things usually get done to me, first!"

Level IV makes an OT, but it can't be varied 1/18th of an inch from its
procedure and still work. There was a hole in it that appeared when it was
imperfectly applied: There are three types of goals that will rocket read:

1. An actual goal, with no GPM connected with it.

2. An implanted goal.

3. An actual GPM. Any GPM can have in it up to a hundred actual goals,
plus the goal of the GPM.

But there is another source of a rocket read:

4. A phrase in an engram. This won't necessarily rocket read, but
it might.

Even a PC's life or session goals can be free actual goals. Every now and
then, one will rocket read. It is probably a lock on an RI. If you run it as
an actual GPM goal, you can even find items -- from the nearest implants, or
other GPM's or locks. But there was no GPM there in the first place. So when
you find a goal rocket-reading, you should check on the meter:

1. Is this an actual GPM'

2. Is this an implant GPM?

3. Is this no GPM?

Auditors have been asking, "Is this an actual goal?", etc., instead. This can
wrap you around telegraph poles, because you will be trying to oppose it, when
it is a lock on something. And you can do this, pulling things all out of
place, for awhile -- until the PC crashes in flames.

The three comm lines in session include the itsa-maker line (the PC's
line into the bank), the whatsit line, and the itsa line. It is an error to
cut the PC's comm line to the bank in order to "put in the itsa line". This
stems from a misunderstanding of the auditor's role as listener. The error
could also have come from a failure to communicate the importance of the PC to
bank (itsa-maker) line. Since it was obvious to LRH that that was what
auditing is all about, he didn't mention its importance. It is where the itsa
line comes from. Without it, the itsa line has nothing to carry. The auditor
is actually there to get the PC to confront his bank. The charge blows off to
the degree that it's confronted, and this is represented by the itsa line.
The itsa line is a report on what has been as-ised, [that] gives it its flow."
The reason why that communication wasn't accepted or didn't go through is the
reason why the auditor is having trouble auditing.

Education is acceptable to a technical end only when it is conceived
pretty purely and relayed well. Technical data must:

1. Be conceived purely.

2. Be relayed well.

3. Be received accurately.

Its test, in scientology, is results. Auditors can also have trouble because
they have glommed onto some older datum and made it an "all", but there is
this overriding fact that "no datum I give you is a substitute for you.
That's the burning thing to remember as an auditor." A datum won't audit a
PC. The only thing that can handle auditing is a live thetan, because that is
all that can handle the complications that come up. You've got to have
technology, but the live thetan in the chair is necessary to audit the PC.