6211C20 SHSpec-215 Fundamentals of auditing

There are probably thousands of rules you could go by in auditing, but
the way to audit has only a few fundamental basic rules, without which
auditing does not occur. These are the senior data of auditing:

1. Auditing is a third dynamic activity.

2. The basis of it is communication.

3. Audit the PC in front of you.

Violate those, and you have had it, no matter how many other rules you are
following. Never neglect those few little fundamentals. An auditor can
forget about communication and sit there as an individuated island. In this
case, no matter what is right about what he does, he won't be auditing the
PC. Don't be a first dynamic using no communication to audit a book or a
nothing. If the auditor and the PC are a group, and if they are in
communication and the auditor is auditing the PC in front of him, then
auditing will occur and results will be obtained. One day, "all of a sudden a
long blue spark hits you, ... and you say [to yourself], 'Maybe if I ask the
PC I can find out," and communication starts to occur.

What a St. Hill graduate misses, when he gets back into the field, is any
feeling that auditing can happen. People don't know that there is a right way
to audit. Also, St. Hill graduates have gotten over being nervous or
self-conscious about auditing.

If you overlook these few little fundamentals of auditing, you then need
thousands of rules to handle whatever comes up. There is a right way to
audit, described above. Relatively muzzled auditing, uniformity of sessions
-- these are desirable if an auditor is going to add a bunch of nonsense into
the lineup. But muzzled auditing is just a curative measure to prevent people
who don't know the above basics from adding nonsense that has nothing to do
with auditing.

The other part of the situation is that the human race knows nothing of
third dynamic activities or communication. What passes for communication in
the wog world is unduplicatable. There are no completed cycles of
communication, and communication consists exclusively of a dispersed mish-mash
of invalidation and evaluation. The rules about Q and A, TR-4 and a host of
others are to keep these aberrated habits out of the session. If you didn't
have TR-4, the green auditor would slip right into think-think, figure-figure,
evaluation, invalidation, etc. None of these have anything to do with the
communication cycle. "Compute" should not be part of the doingness of the
auditor. [Cf. the old definition of an auditor, "One who listens and
computes", in HCOB 26May59 "Man Who Invented Scientology"] The answer to the
PC's origination that "Black is white" is Thank you." It is not "Oh, no it
isn't!" or "That's a neat thought," or whatever.

Every time the PC asks you to do something, it is because you have done
instead of acknowledged, when the PC originated. The PC has begun to control
you. You have driven him out of session and into thoughts about the PT
environment by not letting a communication cycle occur. "To the degree that
you break down the communication cycle, you break down the third dynamic
activity. You individuate the PC, and after that he starts running the
session." He has gone on a self-audit. You will have trouble with the PC in
direct ratio "to the number of times you have not permitted the PC to
originate."

Because the PC is aberrated, it is very easy to individuate him. It is
quite a trick to keep the PC from individuating and going on a self-audit. As
the PC gets better, he is less susceptible to individuation. His thinkingness
should get more under the auditor's control as he goes along. If the PC gets
interrupted by the auditor, such that his communication cycle keeps getting
messed up, his thinkingness will get less and less under auditor control. The
number of times that you have to get the mid-ruds in is a direct index of the
amount of thinkingness that a PC, individuated from the session, has been
engaging in. That is how the auditing third dynamic gets broken down into two
first dynamics. "Two first dynamics do not make a third dynamic." They make a
games condition.

An auditor's perception is not the perception of an individual looking at
another individual. It is a third dynamic perception. There is a knowingness
about whether the PC is in session or not that an auditor will have when he is
genuinely perceptive or intuitive. An auditor's "perceptivity" is bad to the
degree that he departs from the third dynamic back to the first dynamic.

Thetans communicate on the same wavelengths used in space opera. You can
spot an ARC break before the PC knows he has it, if you are attuned to this
form of communication. You used to know and recognize other thetans by their
feeling or wavelength and not by their bodies. Dolls know each other, despite
not having names, as a rule. It is done by direct perception. You can forge
a passport, but try to forge a wavelength! This is not MEST communication,
and it doesn't require or use MEST or even wavelengths as a via.

ESP investigators like Rhine err by testing ESP against MEST and by
entering "proof" into the computations. Proof is one of the most aberrative
buttons on the track.

If you walk through a forest with a gun concealed in your pocket, you
will not see a bird or a squirrel. Why? Because you are emanating menace as
long as you have the gun, and the game gets the communication, even if the
scientist doesn't. The animals don't have to see the gun.

Some thetans evidently emanate more than other thetans. This is also
true of PCs. You apparently get more of a relay from some than from others.
This is a fascinating subject, as long as you don't pull it down into MEST
through the button called "proof". We tried to process people along this
line. The biggest indication we have that it exists is the effect of auditing
on unaudited third parties. Say PC A is having trouble with person B. We
process A. He doesn't have any communication with B. Yet the problem with B
evaporates. Furthermore, frequently B often then tries to communicate with
A! This is so true that you could legitimately chew out A's auditor for not
having solved B's problem with A.

Similarly, an RI will always produce trouble for you. If you are deathly
afraid of oil companies, rest assured that you will get bum stock, short
changed, etc. Process the PC, and the oil company will stop giving the PC a
hard time.

There is, then, a perception factor, but "when the individual is in a
games condition on the third or fourth dynamic -- [say] with women -- ... he
can't perceive. Perception can't bridge across [a] games gap." So the auditor
makes a mess of it every time he audits women. One's perception in such a
case inverts, and one reads a "good" wave as a "bad" one, or vice versa. The
auditor can't perceive what is happening, so he dubs it in. He "writes
script" in session. He thinks and figures, etc. The PC is an enemy, and therefore the auditor doesn't dare to confront or read him. The more the auditor is in this state, the less reliable perception there is and the more substitute perception you will find, taking the form of think. Think = substitute perception. Look, don't think.

Direct perception "only gets invalidated by those who are to some degree
in a games condition with what they are trying to audit or perceive." They
can't confront, so they can't perceive, so they do a "think" instead of a
"look". They "figure it all out."

You have to figure out the way the GPM goes. It is complicated, and
aberration doesn't emanate, so you need the meter as an aid. "But as far as
the PC is concerned, you should be able to read him pretty directly. But if
you can't confront him -- if you don't want to; ... if you don't want anything
to do with him -- you are going to get a substitute in there, and that
substitute is "think", and you're going to go into a consideration of 'What is
going on?', and [you] get script writing at its worst:" the auditor sees an
ARC break when there isn't one, he doesn't see one when it is present, etc.

Tension and complicatedness in a session divides the auditor's attention
and cuts down auditor perception, thereby impairing his performance. If the
auditor takes some weird action, you know that his perception dropped out.
The session will be as clumsy as with the sort of limitation of perception
that occurs when one gives a demonstration session and has one's attention
split up. LRH has experienced that. He flubs in TV demonstrations more often
than normally. So that gives him some reality on what a less perceptive
auditor lives with.

When you don't acknowledge the PC's origination, he will cut down his
transmission power, which will make it that much harder for you to perceive
him. He will also go off on a self-audit. So you get two individuals
"conducting a disrelated activity. One fellow is busy nulling the list, and
the other fellow is trying to keep his rudiments in." The PC tends to
individuate to the degree that you Q and A with him and prevent him from
blowing something by not just letting him get it off and acknowledging. A lot
of auditors think that if the PC mentions something, it means that you have to
do something about it so that the PC can blow it. No. The fact that you say
or do something in response to a PC's origination, or anybody's origination,
tells him that he hasn't gotten it off. He hasn't blown it. It is all a
communication activity. When something is fully communicated and the
communication cycle is complete, it is blown. The degree that a PC can't blow
things is the degree that he has been Q and A'd with. After you have a and A'd
three or four times in the session, what is the use of trying to patch it up?
Now you have to have rules to cure the ARC break. What the Hell were you
doing getting an ARC break in the first place? The rules for getting out of
swamps are LRH's a and A with auditors who got into them through not knowing
fundamentals.

An ARC break occurs fifteen to ninety minutes before most auditors
perceive it, and then they try to clean up the ARC break that has just
happened, which is the wrong one to be cleaning up. It is inexcusable for the
PC to find out that he has an ARC break before the auditor does! Where is the
auditor?

What is wrong with the auditor's perception when the PC, mired as he is in the
bank, can perceive better than the alert auditor? The PC never forgives this,
because it proves to him conclusively that the auditor has individuated and
that he is not in a third dynamic situation and doesn't have an auditor. It
is unforgivable because the PC doesn't forgive it. If that is what your
auditing is like, you won't have sessions. You will have dogs' breakfasts.

But if you are alert, you will find out ages before the PC does that
something is wrong. Don't harass the PC when there is nothing wrong. But if
your own perception is up and the PC doesn't feel right to you, just get in
2WC with him to find out how it is going. And persist enough to be sure,
without badgering him. There is "nothing wrong with making a mistake in ...
session. The only thing that is unforgivable is [for] the PC [to] catch ...
it before you do." Perception, then, comes above technical perfection, because
you can always handle a mistake if you find out about it before the PC does.
E.g. the auditor says, "Is something going on there?" (just light 2WC). The
PC says, "No." Auditor: "Well, did you have a thought of some kind there?" PC:
"No. I ... well, actually, yes. You used the wrong command." That is OK,
because you spotted it first, before it turned into an ARC break that the PC,
incidently, would have attributed to something later in the session, if you
hadn't spotted it at its inception. If the PC could be relied on to spot the
correct source of an ARC break by himself, he wouldn't need an auditor at all,
because he would just blow his ARC breaks by inspection. If he has got one,
he has misassigned it. Q.E.D.

The degree of the apparent ARC break is related to the number of
unobserved ARC breaks that have preceded it. The first ARC break in session
is always quite previous to where the PC thinks it is. This is true of lists,
where the pain turns on before the PC notices it. The PC is always late,
because the bank is instantaneous and he isn't. He wrongly attributes what is
happening. To ask him to think anything at all is miraculous. If he knew
what was going on, he wouldn't need an auditor.

The communication cycle of homo sapiens consists of:

1. I originate.

2. You invalidate.

3. I not-is.

An auditing session is based on a far simpler communication cycle than homo
sapiens imagines. You have to audit the PC in front of you, not the meter.
The final step of matching up the items must be done by the PC, not the
meter. If you go on the basis of, "If the PC said it, it isn't true," you are
again being homo sap. There are some things on which the PC isn't right. He
is never right on a misemotional point. But on what the score is, and on
whether it is the right item, yes. He can tell you that correctly. You could
assess a list without the meter, if you did it very carefully, asking the PC
where the pain was.

There is no substitute for putting the PC in session and auditing him.
If you get tangled up in all the rules, it is just that many rules between you
and the PC that are forbidding auditing. If those rules are used to prevent a
third dynamic, to interrupt or upset a communication cycle, or to get out of
auditing the PC in front of you, then those rules are not for that session.
There are many styles of auditing, but there is no substitute for auditing.
What is auditing to the PC? It is alleviation of his upsets and reaching his
basic purposes and doing down the GPM. He won't let you near his bank and he won't forgive you if you don't run it out. Nevertheless, if he is making gains and getting someplace, the PC will take anything off of you. On the other hand, your auditing could be the last word in technical perfection, but if you are not using it to get somewhere with the PC, he will be ARC broken all the way.

There is a right way to audit. It is directly, straightforwardly. The
good auditor uses the tools that he has to get something done. The bad
auditor doesn't know that there is a right way, but thinks that there are
thousands of right ways and that he has to dream up a new one in session.
That is just another way to figure-figure your way out of giving a session.
The more you add to the basics of auditing, the less it will work. The
auditor who audits smoothly by pattern gets the most done. Rules are valid,
but should never interferes with the three basics discussed in this lecture:

1. Auditing is a third dynamic activity.

2. The basis of it is communication.

3. Audit the PC in front of you.