6108C29 SHSpec-46  Basics of Auditing

     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]

