The Australian flap was caused by one PC, Wern, who had a psychiatric history and couldn't have passed a sec check. He got run on Level VI material, flipped out, and went to court. The legislature has been investigating. Upper-level materials have been appearing in court. A document has turned up showing collusion and plans for how witnesses should testify. The org is ignoring instructions to use the document, because of their lawyer's advice. The lawyer is protecting the government of Victoria! And cables keep coming through, begging for money. This has interrupted research. It shows what happens when an org goes off-policy and you can't get orders executed. Policy has been developed out of past errors. When it is ignored, errors appear and trouble follows. Jane Kember took two years to put Johannesburg back together after they went off-policy.
The effectiveness of processing and effective processing is you, the auditor, bringing about a desired effect on the PC. That is your one activity. This applies also to your activities as an instructor, a lecturer, or just to the way in which you produce an effect on someone you are talking to.
One can produce an effect through threat of destruction and by destruction. That is fifty percent of existence. Fifty percent of all effects in this universe are produced by force. If we study that fifty percent, we will find that "nearly all mental healing activities drift into it." This includes electric shock, etc. It is the solid form of effect. Psychiatrists do not realize that they are trying to influence thought. They have no definition of thought. They don't even think that anything is there thinking. They are trying to influence matter. Man, to them, is matter, and they are using matter to influence matter. They are actually in the field of physics. So an auditor runs a danger in operating in the remaining fifty percent, producing beneficial effects. The danger is that the auditor will leave the other fifty percent on automatic and occasionally drift over into it. Thus everything may be fine for awhile. Then the auditor suddenly explodes.
[This may be the mechanism of failed help = destroy.] An auditor, in blowing up at a PC never has and never will have a good effect on the PC who provoked it. What cures you of doing that is finding, on Level VI, that you did have it all upside down and backwards and that you did actually skip a whole Code on the PC. Ultimately, you keep to the Auditor's Code for your own good as an auditor, since violating it makes auditing much harder.
Taken at random, fifty percent of effects would be destructive. Fortunately, by the laws of life, it is the other fifty percent that has lasting benefits. Eradication has to be 100 percent to be effective. A purity of destruction would be a not-thereness, but destruction doesn't go in that direction. It leaves a pile of rubble. An as-ising of a situation is not looked on as destruction. It is seen as a constructive, beneficial action. Actually, it is an ultimate in the fifty percent-destruction bracket. If you want to free someone, you don't just blow up the jail he is in and create a shambles.
So the effect that you are trying to produce on the PC is simply to set him free by as-ising that which is keeping him caged, without knocking him around or leaving rubble around. It is actually pretty easy to do. The way you would leave rubble around would be by giving advice but not as-ising anything. You have launched an other-determined action. You have set up conflict between two or more other terminals. Life could be handled by setting it into more violent counter-motions, as in war. This leaves lots of debris.
Those are the mechanics by which life handles its problems, i.e. counter-motions, terminals vs. terminals, etc. As an auditor, you are being asked to decry and put aside the standard dramatizing actions that life is prone to. You are asked to assume a better, more workable discipline. You are asked to find out what the problem is, what considerations they have had about the problem, and what they have done to solve it. We find that these are the building blocks of the prison:
1. The problem itself.
2. What they have said the problem was, or what has caused it.
3. Solutions they have had.
That is all the cage is built of:
1. Conceive the problem was there.
2. Alter-is it.
3. Keep on solving it.
There doesn't have to have been a problem before someone conceived of it, since a thetan is always capable of postulating. Then he justifies it, assigns it to someone other than himself and makes that person cause, and then starts solving the wrong problem. He will submerge the problem. The solution now becomes a problem to him. So he solves that one, etc., etc. Eventually all he knows about it is that he is unhappy, abstracted, and can't concentrate. That is the prison that he has built.
As an auditor, your art is in as-ising these bits and pieces, rather than adding to them by giving him new solutions. If you give the PC a command that would as-is some problems and you fail to discover that the PC is doing something other than the command you gave him, he won't improve. You may then change processes, still get no improvement, and end up mad at the PC. You would thereby have slipped over into the other fifty percent of effect-production.
The only reason why an auditor would start this cycle would be from failing to understand that he is supposed to be knocking out aberration, not letting the PC add to it.
Another deficiency in delivering processing to the PC is where the auditor fails to realize that a problem has gone. green auditor may not know that things blow by as-ising, just by the PC's inspecting things and communicating them to the auditor. There could be too little horsepower in the problem for the PC even to cognite, it is so insubstantial. There is nothing more to it than its isness. Be on the lookout for the problem's having blown on the comm cycle alone, before you have a chance to "handle" it. The new auditor may never realize that this as-ising is what his training in TR's, comm cycle, etc., are for. Ideally, you want the PC to blow by inspection, remember.
On the other hand, the auditor can get so used to things blowing, fast that he gets a shock when something doesn't. He has run into one of life's little problems that, instead of floating free, has roots. Problems come in two kinds:
1. Loose problems.
2. Problems that have roots.
Some things that worry people don't have deep roots. Then there are a fee subjects and items that are just little flags, which turn out to be very deeply anchored indeed, and which don't blow. Don't mistake the one for the other. If you do, you will get overrun or unflat processes.
(R1CM is R1C with the meter. Follow the BD, after you have completed your cycle of action.)
It is a mistake to take up something that has a flag that goes all the way to China but gets no needle reaction or TA BD -- only a clean rise, when it is mentioned, although it is something that does bother the PC. It may be an obvious condition, like the PC's wife leaving him, or his lumbosis. But the more you talk about it, the more trouble you have, because as you force the PC into a recognition of the reality of that condition, you pin him to his most fundamental bank. The condition will be something the auditor brought up. It is an unreal subject to the PC.
The only cage that the PC can as-is is the one that he is aware of. You can force the PC into oddball modifications. This is where testing dead-ends, because you can read deeper into the psyche than the PC can as-is. [LRH recounts a papier-mache incident.] The PC's head may be made of papier-mache, and this may be very obvious to the auditor, but the auditor must not evaluate for the PC. The PC can't as-is anything that he isn't aware of, and if he is not aware that his head is made out of papier-mache, and if it doesn't read on the meter, don't try to handle it. If you do, you can restimulate the PC without any hope of destimulating him. "If it reads on the meter, it has a potential of being real to the PC." The meter has the value of only reading on things that are real to the PC. If it doesn't read, it is unreal or it is well suppressed. "You can as-is in a PC what [he] has reality on." This takes a bit of cage away, so he can see more and as-is more.
You could do almost anything on a PC if you audited him on what he could recognize, things he had reality on. That is the magical trick. Everybody has some level of reality on A, R, and C, so they can get something out of processes involving ARC, no matter what level the PC is at. Stick to what is real to the PC.
"'Look around here and find something that's really real,' ... is probably one of the most nebulous [commands] ever [given]. But [the PC] walks over and picks up that wire over there and he says, 'That is very, very, very real:' I don't know what he means, but it means he can recognize a ... wire. I don't know what he means! I don't even know what he means when he says he can recognize it: But it means to me, for the benefit of just the process itself, that he can see it, recognize it, and direct his attention to it. Great! That's all I'm asking. I don't care what else he means.... What goes on in the PC's head when he answers that question? Wow!" Who knows? (Who cares?) The only time you would care is if the guy was being glib.
Beware of the PC who runs glibly, rattling off answers, etc. It is an automaticity of a circuit answering for the person. The PC may come up to awareness of somatics that he has had all along. Learn to look at a PC from the viewpoint of what the PC can see. The auditor's ability to estimate what he has as-ised is part of his effectiveness in auditing. "You've got to know what you've [already just] taken care of, and therefore you have to know how it is taken care of. It is taken care of by being perceived and as-ised, and that's the only way it is taken care of. You ask the PC to look at something you know he can look at. He looks at it, and he as-ises it, and that's the end product of [all] auditing."
It is all very well to have theories about what is wrong with the PC, as long as you don't try to get the PC to as-is your concept of what is wrong.
Actually, the division of the world into the destructive and the constructive is an artificial one. At the top of the scale, there is only the free, since as-isness is destruction. [Paradoxically, what, at a lower level, is viewed as constructive (as-ising) is actually destructive, and what, at a lower level, is viewed as destructive (force, suppression) is actually constructive, in that not-is-ness causes persistence.] Auditing is simple, because it evades the complexities of life by undermining them. If auditing were a solution to life, it would have to be as complicated as life. Fortunately, it isn't. It is an as-ising of life.