6109C05 SHSpec-49 Principles of Auditing

There is no substitute for understanding and there is no understanding
without experience. In an auditing situation where there is no understanding
or familiarity, there is likely to be established only the reality of war, and
if the auditor does not have understanding of and familiarity with the PC and
his bank, he will be at war whether he likes it or not. The anatomy of hatred
is based on the anatomy of non-comprehension. Non-comprehension is based on a
lack of familiarity and observation. If you want to not comprehend something,
by all means don't look at it. Another condition applies: a tremendous amount
of pretended knowingness and pretended understanding can arise after one has
not observed. Psychiatry and psychology got nowhere because they mostly
observed dead tissue, when they observed anything. The reason LRH made
progress in the field of the study of the mind was his novel introduction of
the study of living beings. You'd have to be able to confront motion to do
that, and you would have to be a man of action.

An auditor has two sources of familiarity in processing:

1. Subjective reality.

2. Observation of the PC and meter behavior while he audits.

He can also live and observe life, though this universe is rigged so that if
you do too much living in this particular society, you wind up with too many
withholds, and after that your auditor has a lot of trouble trying to get you
in session. There possibly is some phase of life that is not punished, but if
so, LRH hasn't discovered what it is yet.

Certain rules govern auditing, but they can go only so far in guiding you
along the road to making clears. The great oddity is that it can be done at
all. No number of rules can give you familiarity with what is going on in the
PC at any given moment. You should experience it yourself to gain knowingness
on it. At that point, you will see the reasons, value, and importance of the
rules. About 30% of all cases in scientology have never seen a mind. That's
the only source of bad auditing. Why are auditors difficult to train?
They're only difficult to train in those areas where they don't have
familiarity. So what's needed is a process which gives familiarity, with the
bank and all its aspects, and at the same time, you'd pick up all the
hang-fired clear cases. They are hanging fire because they are not going
along the line they should, in auditing. They're walking the far edge of the
crater so as not to fall in. An auditor who doesn't have familiarity with the
mind will applaud this tightrope walk, and makes sure the PC never falls in
because the thing to do is to keep out of trouble. All of man's wars,
sicknesses, economic disasters, political chaos, etc. come entirely from one
thing: keeping out of trouble. You are not supposed to keep the PC out of
trouble if the trouble is in his bank. A PC never protests at getting into
trouble if it gives him potential familiarity with the bank. He protests
measures that prevent him from becoming familiar with his bank. He protests
no auditing. To audit without curiosity about where the PC is and what he is
doing is a sure-fire way to keep him from getting into any trouble. If you
never find out what's going on, you never have to confront his bank and he
doesn't have to confront his bank. The time can go up to light years and
nobody gets any auditing done. As a general rule, any mechanism you introduce
into a session which permits a PC to avoid confronting his bank or takes the
PC out of session is going to produce ARC breaks, heavy problems etc. All a
PC ever objects to is not being audited. It has to be the PC getting none, not thinking he isn't. Say the PC has a continual PTP with his wife, who denies him auditing. This creates the ARC break. How she denies him auditing can vary, but the prevention of auditing makes the upset.

The reason she does it is interesting: it is because she can't have
auditing.

So the grades of cases are:

1. Those that can't have any auditing.

2. Those that consider their auditing is being prevented.

3. Those that can have auditing.

On the first two classes, you won't get any clearing. So you must remedy
havingness of auditing. Some of the prevention of auditing can result from
non-comprehension of what it is -- missing data of one kind or another. Those
who can't have auditing come under the same heading of scarcity of auditing.
Either it doesn't exist because they have no understanding, and therefore it
isn't anything, or, if it did occur, there would be too many social
repercussions because they have too many withholds.

The PC who is ARC breaky or who has PTP's is being denied auditing in
some way. This sounds very monocentric, since auditing is a new subject. But
adequate treatment has not hitherto existed on this planet. Everyone's
reaction to getting sick or injured is, "Oh, no! I'll have to get treatment.
God forbid!" The only place where regard for treatment has been lower is in
the Markab Confederacy, where medicine was taught with dried tissue samples as
the only mass. There it got so bad that you weren't ever permitted to get a
new body. This was typical of many space-opera societies. This society is
moving in the direction of replacing parts with mechanical substitutes.
Because treatment is so ineffective, it has to be delivered by callous people
who make nothing out of their patients. Otherwise the treatment would be an
overt. They are lessening the overt. And preclears have been educated into
the attitude that there is no effective treatment. Nevertheless, a large
percentage still hopes treatment can take place, amazingly. The hope must be
rather thin by now, so if the auditor makes a move in the direction of no
treatment, the PC ARC breaks. So at first you are doing a cheerleader's job.
Then, when you have him in session, let him have treatment. How could you
prevent him from getting treatment? First, don't let him put his attention on
his case. He never protests crude fumbling with his case, as long as you do
guide him into it. All protests and difficulties of the PC stem from no
treatment, no auditing. You get the violence of an ARC break if you prevent
the PC from getting auditing because auditing is painful. And the basis of
the pain is that there is no auditing. So irreparable damage might occur.
The PC believes now that auditing can cure any damage, but if there is to be
no auditing, then the damage isn't curable, so he is in a state of anxiety as
soon as you violate in-sessionness.

Another phenomenon is involved in this: he is looking at an engram. The
only space in the engram is brought about by his attention on the engram, and
until the engram is desensitized, he will have to keep some space in it to
keep the engram off the end of his nose. So if you distract him suddenly from
an engram, the space may disappear from out of the engram, and he finds that
engram on the end of his nose. You let the engram bite him by taking his
attention off the engram. He can get somatics. Then he compounds it with an
overt against the auditor.

There are many ways one can let the PC's attention be yanked out of
session. One is choosing an auditing room which has action of activity in its
vicinity, because you then set up auditing as the stable datum around which
action is occurring. You can get away with a lot of this, but don't try to
audit in the middle of a busy street. You can run out past auditing in busy
areas by asking, "What has been unknown about the activity of an auditing
area?" This is to handle the 50 cubic yards he was aware of, whose motion
pinned him down into the half a cubic yard of the session. So, ensure that
the session won't be interrupted. An auditor who chatters at a PC about other
things than the session is setting the PC up to pull his attention off his
case. In the session itself, an ineffective process is no auditing. Almost
anything we have now, run smoothly, would keep him in session. Tech is not a
source of auditing bust-ups, since it is auditing. But the administration of
it is the important one.

The prediction factor involves surprise. What is a surprise? People
with low tolerance of unknowns can be surprised more easily than you'd think,
and the degree that a person can be surprised is in proportion to his
tolerance of unknownnesses. The less he tolerates the unknown, the more be
can be surprised. A surprise is not having known, a past tense unknownness.
"What isn't known?" doesn't run surprises; "What wasn't known?" runs
surprises. The fact had existence before he found out about it, and he is
shocked that he didn't know about it when it was going on. The anatomy of
surprise is unpredicted change. It registers in the mind only if there was a
knownness present which the PC didn't know, and then finds out later. He
tries to go backtrack into all that unknownness and gets the impression of
floundering around during that time in a not-knownness, which is an
invalidation of his knowingness and his permeation. That is the only thing a
thetan ever objects to: an invalidation of knowingness. He objects on the
basis of surprise. So he gets a future which looks like this: All sorts of
things going on in his vicinity which he doesn't know about, that he will
maybe find out about and they will be a terrible shock to him. So he starts
living in a state of anxiety, because he's had it demonstrated that facts not
known to him which are quite destructive can exist in his environment without
his awareness. He's sucked back into the whirlpool of unknown yesterdays.
The truth is, he knew his environment in those yesterdays, but he looks back
on it as not knowing his environment. So things of horrible portent could be
going on at this very moment. So that's what anxiety and nervousness is. He
gets very alert so as not to be surprised. This destroys I.Q.; I.Q. goes down
in direct proportion to the amount of unknownness he conceives the environment
to hold. This will apply to a subject, too. Someone who gets more
unknownness in the environment than he can tolerate may manifest the insanity
of putting a known [delusory] terminal there. That's a pretended knowingness
on the environment.

This applies directly to sessions. Most of what a PC is going through is
accumulation of unknownnesses that he suddenly found out, and nearly
everything he's got in the bank is a prevention against being caught unawares
again. So when a PC finds out something from the auditor which existed before
he discovered it, here's what could happen: he's interiorized into his bank,
and the auditor fiddles with the cans and says, "The meter is out, so we'll
have to stop the session." The PC is given the data that the meter was out
when he didn't know it, so there wasn't a session when he thought there was
one. He doesn't know how long this was the case, and the mystery pins him in
the session. Or the auditor stops the when the PC thought he was doing all
right. That gives him an unknown.

Surprise is based on change. We're interested in the unknown factor,
which is what sticks PC's in it. You can change a process fifteen times an
hour on a PC without damaging him, but you can suddenly change a process on
some consideration he doesn't know about and ARC break him across the boards.
The PC will accuse the auditor in an effort to solve the unknownness which
existed before the change. You could advise the PC well in advance of what
you intented to do, so long as you don't yank his attention off what he's
looking at. If you start running a process without clearing it first or
letting him know you're going to do it, you'll probably get away with it
unless the process doesn't work well, in which case he'll think you are
impetuous.

A PC is only one kind of victim -- a victim of no auditing, no matter how
many motivators show up on his case. That's the only one that can cause
auditing difficulties. He feels an unknown exists he doesn't know about in
the session. That's why you've got to keep the R-factor up and the
knowingness factor in. Pc's sense the unknowns. When one is about to occur,
turn it into a known: warn him. Don't try to gain auditing time by omitting
these things. You can audit a PC without his agreement, but you can't audit
him without his knowingness.

ARC breaks clear up most rapidly on not-know processing. Run it always
in the past tense, not the present, because that's where there was an element
of surprise, the unknown which preceded the found outs. Model session also
provides a known structure. You can jump it -- as long as you tell him.

The unknownness of the PC's bank really impinges on him. If you, the
auditor, have no reality on its components, no knownness on its components,
he'll sense you don't know your business. Your Ability to control the session
depends directly on your knowingness of the parts of the mind. This is of
course why LRH audits so effectively. The PC feels you see all, know all when
you, seeing where he isn't looking, direct his attention to it. Get familiar
with the mind and make the session familiar to the PC, and you'll be a bearcat
of an auditor.

To handle ARC breaks, you can ask, "What didn't I know about what you
were doing?"