6208C21 SHSpec-188 Basics of Auditing

Auditors keep asking LRH for rules and more rules. Then they goof in
session and ask for more. It is strange that fundamentals usually come at
high levels of training. Here is what an auditor should be able to do: He
should be able to get another being to be interested in his own case and
willing to talk to him. Rules, tricks, rudiments, and various other types of
upset-preventers are all contributive to getting this to occur. The E-meter
is only contributive insofar as it applies to rudiments. It is vital for
assessing. In rudiments, you are trying to do with rules and the meter
something that you cannot do yourself. This won't work. Some auditors have
only to sit down in the chair to have the PC ARC break. This is more true now
than ever.

The difficulties the auditor encounters are his own difficulties, and the
mechanics he uses force the PC into session with an auditor who doesn't want
the PC in session or who doesn't understand that the PC should be in session
or why the PC should be in session. The mechanics of rudiments and rules have
made auditing so powerful that the PC is put into a state where he is
interested in his case and wants to talk to the auditor. But the auditor
thinks he is supposed to do something else and drives the PC out of session
again. So the PC ARC breaks. The auditor looks like an auditor and the rules
trick the PC into session. Then the PC finds that the auditor doesn't want to
hear what he is saying. The auditor is auditing by some set of rules. In
fact, there is no auditor, but the technology has created a PC. This drives
the PC around the bend. The PC doesn't know what is wrong, but he feels that
something is wrong.

We have been blaming meter reading, missing reads. This is just another
technical rule. Someone who understood the basics of auditing and used them
could miss reads and clean cleans and still have a PC happily in session. But
someone who cleans cleans and misses reads must be auditing, not by basics,
but by rules that force a PC into session. If there is no auditor but only
rules and a meter, the rules may be right and the meter wrong. There is
nothing else holding the PC in session, so he gets upset. If the auditor is
not there and he misses something, it is curtains. So it is very necessary to
know what the basics of auditing are.

The remedy for the above situation is that people are going to learn to
prepcheck and to put ruds in without meters and to do this accurately. This
will make auditors. They can do it because they will learn the basics of
auditing.

Why does auditing exist at all? There are two articles in Certainty
magazine (1958) that take apart what psychoanalysis did wrong. Anyone that
went into session in analysis did so accidentally. Basically, the analysand
never had an auditor. He was also never brought back to PT at the end of
session.

The basics of auditing include the mechanics of blowing something -- the
reason why auditing works (Axiom 51). One underlying thread is the principle
that after a session, a PC should feel better. Even an awful goals assessment
session that missed the goal should end up with the PC feeling better.
Secondly, the auditor must get off the PC's withholds.

The earliest part of auditing is the roughest part, since all the missed
withholds of life are still sitting there unrelieved. It takes a far better
auditor to handle such a case than to handle someone who has come up the line
a ways. Scientologists are not really harder to audit than raw meat,
especially raw meat that hasn't ever reached for anything. You would be
surprised, though, at who can go into session and who can be audited. Once,
in Detroit, the cops seized some tapes. Fourteen cops listened to them, and
twelve resigned from the force!

An auditor should be able to handle the PC's problems and to get a clean
needle so that the PC can be assessed and made to feel better. An auditor
should audit to get things done in a session, not just to audit. Auditing
consists of getting something done by a series of little accomplishments, not
by going through the motions.

You should be able to get a PC into session without a meter, rules, or
anything. Some people have a gift for this. An auditor should be able to let
the PC blow something by talking to him. You would be surprised how rare this
is. You should also be able to get done what the PC wants done, without Q and
A. People have trouble differentiating between TR-4 and Q and A. An auditor
must be able to make this distinction. He must handle the session and do
things the PC wants done without Q and A. You have to work at it, to get in
trouble with this. Q and A is simple:

1. Not accepting the PC's answer; questioning the PC's answer. Auditing
isn't done by rules but by understanding. People who Q and A don't
want the PC to talk to them. They use a remark, a comment, or a
request for more information to prevent the PC from just saying
something and blowing the charge. Or the auditor doesn't
acknowledge. This is a defensive mechanism.

2. Doing something every time the PC says something. An auditor who
always does what the PC says will drive the PC crazy. An auditor who
audits strictly by rules and not by understanding will never do
anything a PC says, no matter how reasonable or sensible it is, which
also drives the PC crazy.

There are two things that PCs do:

1. They ask auditors to do things such that if the auditor doesn't do
them, the session will go around the bend.

2. They originate.

Auditors who are having a hard time with PCs never differentiate between these
two situations. They don't evaluate importances. They try to follow all the
rules instead of helping the PC. You don't take up the process that the PC
wants run or the goal which the PC asserts but which doesn't check out. On
the other hand, you don't ignore it when the PC says, "This room is so hot
that I am melting!" Open the damn window!

There is no substitute for understanding and a feeling of humanness.
Obnose!

Why does auditing work? It bothers someone to be the only one who knows
something. He feels better when someone else can see it too. He doesn't like
to have only his attention on something. It bothers him to have to keep it
from other people. When he puts something out and lets someone else see it,
and the person says that he has seen it, and nothing else happens, Axiom 10
hasn't fired. The catastrophic effect he expected hasn't been produced.
Auditing of withholds blows the PC's certainty of consequences. He gets off a
gross overt that he knew would kill him if anyone else ever found out about
it, and there is no consequence. The only thing that happened was
ventilation. Having gotten off the withhold, the PC finds himself with his
attention freed up from that subject. Before, it was stuck on keeping it
withheld. So he drops it like a hot potato. Without going into the mechanics
of as-ising, we can say this: If the horrible consequences that the PC
expected, on getting off a withhold, don't materialize, his previously fixed
attention is freed up.

Auditors have interesting methods of preventing PCs from blowing things.
They use the meter. They do something every time the PC originates. If the
auditor always does something or asks another question about it, the PC isn't
allowed to blow anything. Auditing works because the PC blows things. If he
isn't allowed to blow things, he will blow up. The point is to audit the PC,
not to go through a drill.

Auditors should be able to clean up a dirty needle. They should be able
to prepcheck, simply using PC indicators to establish cleanness of the
question. But don't try to assess goals without one. If rules get in your
way, you probably don't understand the rules. The reason for this emphasis is
that 3GA requires a superb auditor, if it is to be done rapidly.