Good auditing is not a question of memorizing the rules of auditing. If you are worried about the rules of auditing, there's something basically wrong. Per the Original Thesis, auditor + PC is greater than the bank, and the auditor is there to see that auditing gets done, to direct the PC's attention so as to confront unknowns, to straighten out the bank. The less auditing you do or the less effective auditing you do, the more upset the PC will be. When the auditor sits down in the auditing chair and the PC in the PC chair, what contract exists? Very simple. The PC sits down to be audited, i.e. to get on towards clear, even if he doesn't know it consciously. He's not there to have ARC breaks run, PTP's handled, or to straighten out his rudiments. In fact, ruds go out to the degree that auditing doesn't get done. If you use the whole session to put ruds in, or if you spend no time on it, little or no auditing gets done. Somewhere in here is the optimum amount of time spent on ruds -- say five minutes. If you spend most of the session getting ruds in, he's got a new PTP: how to get auditing! He doesn't consider ruds to be auditing, so he's out of session. He thinks auditing is things getting done towards going clear. So your main chance is to audit the PC, if it gets to a choice between auditing and some obscure rud that his attention isn't on. To the PC, auditing is handling anything his attention is fixed on, e.g. the hidden standard, chronic PTP's, goals, etc. If you endlessly handle ARC breaks, you get more because you are creating a PTP, violating the contract with the PC. He will sit there and endlessly run Routine 1A, because it's in the direction of his problems. Do keep the ruds in, but don't make a session out of them. The PC will protest strongly against handling his minor PTP's; he assigns a high value to his auditing time and wants to use it towards his goal of going clear. If an auditor takes a positive, controlling, down-to-business approach, his pcs will swear by him because he audits.
Escape as a philosophy is a complicated subject. It has to do with the orientation of an auditor; it's the only thing that can get in his road, as long as he follows scientology and goes on auditing. All the levels of the Prehav scale have to do with escape. If any of them is hot or unflat on a auditor, you'll get the auditor letting the PC escape because it's his modus operandi of handling situations. It's totally wrong-headed as far as getting the PC clear is concerned. This is why an auditor doesn't control a session, when he doesn't. He thinks he's being nice to the PC.
Under the same heading comes subjective case reality that is necessary in an auditor. What are we looking at when we find a scientologist who has never seen or gone through an engram, never collided with a ridge, is not aware of the then-ness of incidents? If he is not aware of those things, he will continue to make mistakes, and no amount of training will overcome it. Just knowing this will overcome it. If he has never been stuck on the track, has never seen ridges, it's because his basic philosophy of life is escape. He doesn't have case reality because he's running from his case. His way to handle a case is to get out of it, so that's all he does with a PC. So the PC is never in session. It's pure kindness, from the auditor's point of view. One way to do this is to change the process; another is to Q and A. The auditor shortsightedly gives the PC "freedom" at the price of not getting him clear. The auditor who has no case reality dramatizes the engram he's stuck in and which he's trying to escape by not confronting. When he gets into the engram, what he'll see is what he looked at to avoid confronting the pain or unpleasantness, which he suppressed to escape from it. He escapes mentally. Unconsciousness is an escape. It works. [Cf. Red Blanchard and his blackouts.] This person will have odd somatics and difficulties that he can't account for. He can't see the pictures because he's putting his attention on the solution: escape. All the mechanisms of not-is will be present, here. If he contacts the engram at all, it'll be very brief. He pulls his attention right off of it. But he will have a somatic that doesn't not-is. He's stuck in "PT", which is really the ends of all his engrams, so he will keep his PC in PT at all times, because the auditor is in PT. He won't guide the PC's attention through an engram because escape is the better philosophy.
There's a direct cure for this -- a one-shot process that gives these auditors an enormous reality on what we're running, namely: "What unknown might you be trying to escape from?" This unstacks all those not-ised engrams. You're running the reverse of escape, which is confront. You don't have to erase the whole bank. You can just get familiarity with it.
The mechanism of escape is one used widely by thetans, of course. A thetan would be in a bad way if when his body dies he couldn't exteriorize! It's not a bad thing to be able to escape, but when someone is compulsively escaping, he never escapes. Escape as a philosophy gets in the road of auditing. Case reality is necessary in the auditor, i.e. a willingness to stay there and take a look. A person who doesn't have reality on the bank has consistently escaped from bank, he of course does odd things in auditing. When he audits a PC, he doesn't know what the PC is doing or thinks he shouldn't be doing it, so we get no clearing. If you, as an auditor, pull the PC's attention away from the incident he's running, he gets confused, sticks there, feels betrayed. You could educate that auditor endlessly without producing any change in that philosophy unless you hit the philosophy itself. You cannot educate an auditor who has that philosophy into giving a smooth session, keeping the PC in session with his attention on his bank. When an auditor makes consistent mistakes, does a lot of Q and A, yanks the PC's attention to PT, we assume that that auditor has the philosophy of escape. There's no sense in putting up laws to counter it. Just spot it and handle it.
About responsibility for the session: From the Original Thesis, you have the law of auditor + PC greater than the bank, and PC less than the bank. Thus, for instance, self-auditing produces minor results at best. It just remedies havingness on auditing. Self-auditing tends to happen when true auditing is scarce, for instance by having an auditor whose philosophy is escape. To handle this, just audit. Reestablish the PC's confidence in the fact that he is being audited and will be audited. If the preclear weren't less than the bank, the bank wouldn't give him any trouble. Even though he's creating the bank, he's created something out of control. Someone who's aberrated is less than the bank; someone who's psychotic is the bank, being totally overwhelmed by the bank. Recognizing that one is auditing someone who is to a degree overwhelmed by his bank, and realizing the laws from the Original Thesis, we should realize that the auditor has got to be running the PC at his bank to get anything done. When the auditor withdraws from doing this, he collapses the PC's bank back on the PC. A way to get a major collapse of the PC's bank is to take a direction of the PC's and follow it. There are two reasons for this:
1. The auditor is taking directions from the bank
2. The auditor has subtracted himself from the basic equation.
It looks to the PC as if only he is confronting the bank. He loses the illusion that the auditor is confronting it too, and his bank collapses on him. The PC is now just self-auditing. Pcs do this out of anxiety to get auditing. They take over responsibility and try to take control. If you take one direction from the PC, his bank collapses on him, no matter how reasonable his direction may seem. This is the first time we've really looked at this mechanism. It's the primary method by which the auditor ceases to take responsibility for the session. This may mean model session should be rewritten. It's there to give the illusion of courtesy, that's all. If the auditor doesn't want the PC to be butchered by the bank, he'd better stick by his ideas of what he should be doing, no matter how wrong-headed or upsetting those ideas may appear to be. Never do what the PC says, no matter how right he may be or how wrong you are. If you take the PC's advice on some direction you've given him, no matter how screwy and uncompliable with your direction was, you've made a very major error and collapsed the PC's bank in on him.
You can also put a PC at responsibility for the session by considering that pcs ought to do such and such. That makes the PC responsible for the condition he's in, in session. This makes for the equation: (no auditor) + PC is less than the bank. This is a failure to grant beingness to the PC in session. A PC is doing what he is doing, and he should be doing what he is doing. [Auditor's Code No. 14] Considerations on top of this about what the PC should be doing interrupt responsibility for making the PC do something. As long as your intentions are wrapped up with what the PC ought to be doing, in inspecting pictures and so on, you are making this occur. The error is that instead of making the PC do or become what you want him to, you add the sneak consideration "The PC ought to...." This faintly implies, "I'm not responsible." This winds up with a collapsed bank.
The most prevalent kind of Q and A is where every time the PC says something, you follow it. This lets the PC spot what you should be auditing. You are thus dropping your responsibility, and you have permitted him to escape from the original question. The PC never wants to handle what you want him to handle, but he has been running away for trillions of years and knows quite well that he has to face up. He just needs some backup on it. This doesn't mean you must be totally unreasonable. If the PC wants to go to the bathroom, you can let him. It's not a session direction. But if he wants to go again five minutes later, it's an escape, so you say, "No."
Invalidation is the basic overwhelm. The PC says, "It's my father." you say, "It can't be!" You could run a whole case, probably, with "Who has been invalidated?" What is death, sickness, or punishment but invalidation? You are taking him on a tour of the bank -- getting him familiar. He'll come out the other end not afraid. Don't let him escape with ruds or his own directions about what to do, etc. An auditor would win, even if ignorant of fine points of tech, if he followed these principles. The PC must feel able to talk to the auditor, so you don't shut him up when he tells you that something is wrong with the process, or whatever. [Auditor's Code No. 16]