6411C17 SHSpec-47 "Styles of Auditing"

[Reference: HCOB 6Nov64 "Styles of Auditing".]

Getting the different auditing styles clarified and formalized will make
learning to audit easier. Over the years, many auditing styles have developed
to deliver different processes. Repetitive commands came in in 1955-56, along
with TR's. Muzzled auditing followed, to handle auditors who messed up PCs
with interruptions, comments, etc. More recently, with LRH's work on the comm
cycle and the discovery that auditors weren't really listening, listen style
was developed. For prepchecking and sec checking, where you steer the PC
around, another style was developed: guiding style. Now that we have all the
processes, all the styles are there, in order of developing an auditor's
skill, as he goes up the levels. The higher you go, the more precise your
auditing is, but also the higher you go, the more sloppy your auditing may
look.

At the level of R6, the PC is going through so much and changing so fast
that the auditor has to be able to shift and change rapidly in order to keep
up with the PC and his mind, and in order to do just what is necessary to keep
the PC running down the bank.

A PC has to be up aways to be able to have all-style auditing. For the
PC to be up to standing all-style auditing would require a high level of
confidence in auditors and acquaintance with different styles of auditing. So
the unpredictability of all-style auditing would throw the PC off, if this was
the first style he had encountered. Auditing the PC at lower levels would
give him more certainty. If you ran R6 on raw meat, you might get away with
it, but the first mess you got into would be the end of the PC. He's got no
confidence in auditing and no reliance on scientology's ability to handle
PTP's, to fix him or rescue him, etc. There is a case factor also preventing
a new PC from being audited on R6. The worse off someone is, the more
"important" he is and the more exaggerated his ideas of his ability are. He's
got hidden standards, out-confront, etc., etc. There isn't much you could do
if you put the PC on R6 and he spun, so don't do it. You are making yourself
the effect of his bank. Most people start their auditing in total
desperation, in fear of going out the bottom. Getting up to the point where
they know that they won't get any worse (Release) is a major improvement. It
doesn't necessarily take a long time to do this. You might tend to overrun
the PC unless you observe well and note the acceleration of gain that occurs.
Don't cut off PC cogs. Furthermore, you are handling a level of case that is
voluntarily trying to improve, which means that there is some spark of
responsibility for self-improvement and some idea that the person can do
something about it. People can go so far downscale that they think nothing
can be done about anything. Then you get a socialist or a communist state to
take care of them. One reason why governments call scientology a fake is that
they have the opinion that nothing can be done, [and scientology is claiming
that it can do something].

Through a PC's course of auditing, we must keep the PC winning so that
"self at cause" keeps coming up. It is easier to make someone better than to
make him worse. He resists getting worse but doesn't resist getting better.
When he realizes that he can and must do something to get better, and that he
will not get worse, be will be a Release.

The auditing styles can be plotted against the most likely win for the PC
at a given stage of his auditing. How you audit a PC is at least as important
as what you audit. Just the mechanics of auditing are therapeutic, regardless
of the process they are applied to. First the PC discovers that he can talk
to someone. Then he discovers that he can answer a question when he is asked
one. there is some 8C in this that is beneficial, as well as duplication,
which he has fallen away from. He can't be anything, because he can't
duplicate anything. Unless you have gotten someone out of this kind of
condition, he can't confront existence.

A thetan can only be what he can see. He can only see what he can
duplicate. It is hard to get duplication of an accident or a crime, because a
person can't be it. Therefore, he can't see it. This leads to a "slight
occupational liability as an auditor. You are looking at a PC, all the time,
that you don't particularly want to be. You're trying to improve him, aren't
you?! Fortunately, it isn't necessary for you to be willing to be aberrated,
to get well," because we have the whole anatomy of the reactive bank, and
there is no sense in it. If the PC hadn't made the reactive mind and the
GPM's, he would be virtually unaberratable. There would be no dwindling
spiral, because the thetan would have to determine to have something wrong
with him. A thetan had to decide to be aberrated. He did it, but almost
accidentally. Having done it, he was too stupid to get out of his trap.

There are different degrees of aberration, based on the locks and the
tendency of the reactive mind to group, bunch up, and get into restimulation.
There are some basic things that can go wrong with a thetan, which are above
the level of the bank and GPM's. These include duplication and
communication. Duplication and communication can be aberrated, regardless of
end-words. There are end-words there too, but these are high-level ideas
common to all thetans, with or without banks. A PC should be able to
communicate and duplicate pretty well. They do improve, up to the point where
he can confront his bank. At Level 0, the PC knows that he has communicated
because the auditor received the communication. At Level I, the PC knows he
has received a communication, because he has answered it and the auditor is
satisfied with the fact that he has answered the communication. If the
auditor lets the PC receive a communication or question that he doesn't
answer, the PC is unsatisfied, because, knowing that he didn't answer the
question, he starts doubting his ability to receive a communication. At this
level, he finds that not only can he answer a question, but also he can answer
it repetitively. This is a big change for many people. When a PC can answer
a question repetitively that is even better than just being able to answer a
question. That is why we say, "I will repeat the auditing command." [See
Abridged Style below.]

Guiding style. At this level, we are handling the PC's finding out that
there is something there. To the PC, the whole world is reasonless. He is
starting out at a lower harmonic of the truth, namely that there is nothing
there and that he has no reason to be upset about anything. He says, "I feel
nervous today," and sees no cause for it. The biggest cog here is that there
are causes for things. For one thing, he will realize that he is not just
natively stupid or that life doesn't have to be a mess. Something could be
causing the condition he is in. The PC needs to get the idea that conditions
don't just happen, but are caused by things, and that be is "no longer just a
pawn. If things cause things, you might be able to predict. If things cause
things, you might be able to do something about something. If things cause
things, you might be able to do something about yourself!!!"

Guiding Secondary Style. This comes out of guiding style auditing.
Steer plus itsa is the process that goes with it. You find it and bleed it
(Remedy A and B). Level II locates causes. Without knowing the cause, a
person is dispersed all over the universe. Finding the cause, and then doing
something about it, is terrific.

Abridged style. When he has learned all that, it is safe to run him on
an abridged style. We can look and see what is going on. The reason why, at
Levels I and II, you always say, "I'll repeat the auditing question," when the
PC hasn't answered it is that you are teaching the PC that he can receive and
answer an auditing question. At Level III, this is not necessary anymore, and
it may be irritating to the PC. He already knows that he can get the
command. So you have abridged style, in which the auditor and the PC can look
and see what is going on. This is an abridgement of lower, not upper styles.
The PC says he has a PTP. You don't guide him into it. You just ask, "What is it?" It usually blows, so you then drop it. The PC can as-is things more easily now. You audit purely against a finite result to the point of getting to happen what you want to have happen and no further. The PC learns that when he gets audited, something happens.

Direct style. Now we've got direct style auditing. Getting the exact
result applies even more, here. You go direct to the result.