6311C05 SHSpec-321 Three Zones of Auditing

As an auditor, you can now be found out -- by the TA motion that you get
on your PCs. An accomplished auditor can get TA at will. TA motion has to be
prevented by the auditor, to keep it from occurring. It is prevented by:

1. Additive complications.

2. Failure to recognize basics.

There are three zones of auditing and applied scientology:

1. Basic auditing.

2. Case analysis.

3. Routine 4.

So there are three zones of expertise, which you should recognize as separate
areas of performance. To be expert, the auditor must be good in all three
zones. Someone could do technique perfectly, but, lacking basic auditing and
understanding of what the mind consists of, he will not get anywhere.

LRH's auditing is perfectly mechanical and by-the-book, doing R4. He
goes along, doing it until the PC either gets to the end of the processing
cycle, or until the PC has fallen on his head. In the latter case, he becomes
a case analyst, using a different set of data, namely, "How do banks go
together?" The PC can say anything he likes about the situation, as long as
there is TA. When the PC is done, the case analyst goes looking for why the
list is misbehaving. Having done an analysis, the auditor knows that the
accuracy of the analysis is subject to question because of the charge on the
case, so any charge gotten off will make a more accurate analysis possible,
until all charge is gone. Only factors that are present now are analyzed. No
former analysis is relied on. No analysis is valid after its date of
inception, because more charge may meanwhile have been taken off the case.
The accuracy of case analysis depends on the PC's ability to itsa. So
case-analyses shift. They are always conditional and time-specific.

There is a trick of not speaking invalidatively, while not buying
something the PC is selling. The PC says that X is his goal. You say,
"Fine. I'll check it out. (Calls the goal) I'm sorry. That didn't read."

In a case analysis, you look at the source that you got a list from, as
well as the possibility that the PC was ARC broken or not answering the
auditing question, etc. When you find the right answer, you will get some TA
action. It will correct to something like it should be. When you reach that
point, you go back to being an auditor, being mechanical, etc., and you give
the question. You go back to what you were doing. You never wear both hats
at the same time. Just wear the hat that is needed at the time.

There is one hat that you wear all the time: the basic auditing hat.
Lacking that, it doesn't matter how good you are at the other two. Basic
auditing is giving someone something to talk about, letting him talk, letting
him know that he has said it, when he has, and running an E-meter all the
while. The basic auditing hat includes:

1. TR's. Acknowledge at the end of the complete cycle of action. If
the answer involves only one itsa, ack at the end of one itsa. If it
occurs after fifty itsas, ack after 50 itsas.

2. The Auditor's Code.

3. Metering.

4. Itsa line handling.

All basic auditing actions are co-ordinated with the PC. There are four
elements to what happened in a session:

1. What the PC did.

2. What the auditor did.

3. What the bank did.

4. What the meter did.

The auditor's actions in the session are relatively unimportant. The most
unseen character in the world is an auditor in session. He is about as
visible as a drop of water in a stream. This is an almost perfect example of
a thetan with no mass. The important actions in the session are the
performance of the PC, the PC's bank, and the E-meter. The auditor's actions
only matter to the degree that they interfered with the PC's actions. An
auditor's actions can be anything, so long as they are not destructive to the
session. An auditor runs mostly on a lack of action. Auditing is a third
dynamic activity. The auditor merely runs it. Basic auditing is like the
firebox of the ship's engine. The-tech is like the generating equipment. The
big engine is the bank. This is not so great an analogy.

All an ARC break means is that something has gone wrong in the case
analysis department, not in the basic auditing department. A wrong goal found
can be listed smooth as silk, but any later slip will produce an ARC break.
Basic auditing can always be improved. It is not a bunch of do's and don'ts.
It is a thetan sitting in the auditing chair, running the PC and the PC's
bank, verifying it on the meter, and keeping up both the small and the large
auditing cycles. There are no rules or tricks in it anywhere that solve all
its problems, because it is not a complicated action. You make it far more
complicated than it is.

The zone of auditing called R4, mentioned earlier in the lecture [p. 539,
above], is really technique of any sort. These three zones of auditing apply
at lower levels too, in the same order of use and importance: basic auditing,
then technique and case analysis. If you get confused in your own mind about
what's what, you will think that you need a new technique, when your technique
is fine but your basic auditing is out. You think that you are being trained
as auditors, when in actuality you are simply being untrained from all the
complications which, during the vast vistas of time, you have accumulated,
with regard to human relationships and minds.

A person believes that if he takes too much responsibility for one of
these sectors, it is liable to go wrong. That is just because he is
unconfident. The think on it is, "It is best to let the PC run the session
because (hidden datum) if anything goes wrong, then it isn't really my fault."
And this is called, "Making the PC self-determined." Or the opposite think can
occur, "The PC doesn't know what he is talking about. He will get himself in
trouble and I will be to blame. So therefore I had better do everything in
the session and not permit the PC to do anything in the session, because if
you depend on the PC, that will make him guilty, and that is like blaming the
PC. You really shouldn't do that. So we will relieve the PC of all
responsibility. We will [get our itsa from] the meter." But what is all this
worry about it going wrong? An effort not to have wrongness is not a
session.

There is very little to teach in basic auditing. There is the PC's
attention line. You keep it on some area of the bank until he has said all
that is there, and when he is finished, you see that he is, and you tell him
that he is done. You can produce TA action with, "Do birds fly?", with good
basic auditing, surprisingly enough.

Auditing is doing basic auditing, running a process, and having an
analysis of the case that justifies running the process and that tells you
when the process is flat. Auditing is these three departments. The most
important part of the session is the PC. The next most important part is the
PC's bank, the next is the meter and its verification of what is going on, and
the least visible part (though the most important part as far as the beingness
of the session is concerned) is the auditor.

A session is an irreplacable section of time that will never occur
again. So what happens in the session is important. The important questions
for a session are:

1. What actually happened in the session?

2. Was there TA action?

3. Was the PC's ability to itsa and confront improved?

4. Was the PC's bank straightened out?

Those are the important things, not whether you appear in session in costume,
so long as when you appear in session, your appearance doesn't impede the
session. Appearance is only important in that it could be distracting or
disturbing.

Basic auditing training is simply the average action best calculated to
produce a result in a session, with minimal impedance of session gain. There
is no completely proper auditing action, except as measured against these
elements. All your self-criticism is badly spent. It is whether you produce
results that really matters.