6201C23 SHSpec-103  Basics of Auditing

     A person who is fairly new to scientology and in doubt about it is
frequently someone who is just stuck in a ridge where he has no certainty that
anything works or happens.  There is no sense in trying to shove training down
his throat.  He needs auditing first.  His whole life is in a "maybe", and he
will have to be run on positive and negative to handle the ridge.

     Another easily overcome barrier to training is pretended knowingness.  It
is a downscale mockery of knowing.  It gives the PC a funny sensation, being a
thoroughgoing fake.  But it doesn't buck your effort to train as much as the
"maybe" case.

     A person stuck in a maybe can make trouble as a PC, too.  He often sets
extravagant, unreal session goals and is in an obsessive games condition with
the auditor, where he is attempting to give the auditor loses.  The PC will go out of session very easily; he is not under the auditor's control.  Run him lightly fundamental processes.  Give only light effects.  This is a no-effect case, and you must audit him with a feather.  8C is not low enough for them.  They go around touching walls with never a comm lag.  The process doesn't bite because they are not really there.  Sit them down with some small, dull object like a piece of chalk and have them get the idea that the chalk is there / not there.  This will pick up a lot of confusion and randomity.  Work with the person.  Take the chalk away, let them see what that would look like.  Run the process until the PC takes over the automaticity of not-ising physical objects and the room starts going solid on them.  Keep on with the process.  It is very light.  You are dealing with the old effect scale.  As the PC goes down towards total effect, the effect he can experience is a breath of air.  A no-effect case can't confront or even notice a large effect, only a very small one.  If you blew them up, they would never find out about it; that's too much effect.

     We see that clearly in the overt-motivator phenomenon.  The more
motivators the person has earned, the less motivators the person can have, so
what to you seems minor, to the person is a major disaster.  He thinks
everyone is against him, etc., but he couldn't perceive a large explosive
action if it occurred.  His automatic not-is takes care of large effects.  You
could probably give him a session full of GAE's, no-auditing and he wouldn't
notice the badness of it, but if you missed one tick on an ARC break, he would
notice the small error.

     Critics of auditing are always looking for small errors on this basis.
In a country like Spain or Mexico, there can be enormous mis-government,
atrocious wars, banditry, etc. and at the same time, punctilious courtesy and
honesty in small things.  They don't see the gross outnesses.  A democracy is
only as good as people can see what is going on.  It is the enough-motivator
of an old empire that results in the not-is.

     Low-scale cases could be given very bad auditing without their noticing.
This is not advised, but it could be done.  Middle range pcs will be aware of
both large and small errors and are affected by them.  When they come upscale,
they see the whole error and are less affected by it than the low-scale PC.
So, as you audit people up the line, your auditing has to improve.

     Forms, rituals, procedures -- none of these will see you through a
session.  All that will see you through is auditing.  The second you start
leaning on your tools, like Model Session, [you are in trouble.] What is
phenomenal is that you can make a gain with pcs using only ritual.  Auditing
is a science, not an art.  LRH's sessions contain lots of auditing covering
the bare bones of Model Session.  Student sessions have the bones showing
through.  The PC, even if he is a trained auditor [or especially if he is] is
very aware of your taking up beginning rudiments But what is the PC doing
listening to the auditing bones?  He is supposed to be interested in his case,
and there he is listening to the bones rattle.  Good auditing is when you
didn't notice the auditor using Model Session, when he was using it.  It is
smooooth.  There's no need to make a production out of everything you do.  Get
so that you can shift gears smoothly from, say, running a simple havingness
process to finding what inval or eval has caused it to stop working.  The more
the PC is in session, the faster the PC will blow an aberration.  The less afraid of things they are, the less they duck and dodge and the braver they feel.  If the PC comes in talking about a PTP he is stuck in, handle it.  Don't worry about formal start of session.  When it is handled, get Model Session going.

     So you either have to use TR-4 when the PC comes up with any of the
myriad things pcs can come up with, or if it is something that really is in
need of more handling, you must know how to handle it.  You have the
horsepower to head the PC in the right direction down through the slot the PC
needs, to get where he is going, so use it and get him to the slot.

     Now there are four flows to the Flow process:

           1. Outflow

           2. Restrained outflow

           3. Inflow

           4. Restrained inflow.

All of these are self-determined; they are easy for the PC to self-determine.
We have hitherto looked on inflow as motivators and restrained inflow as a
sort of motivator side of it.  But mixed up in the motivators is the PC's
self-determined action to make the inflow occur and the PC's self-determined
action to make the inflow not occur, respectively.  Flows three and four are
not as important as withhold and outflow.  You handle flows one and two all
the time.  A PC can self-determine a bad inflow in order to get a motivator.
When you make an auditing error that causes the PC to ARC break, the action
seems to be so much yours that you seldom notice the self-determined part the
PC has in it.  Maybe he did it so he could outflow a make-you-guilty.

     There are more than four flows of course.  There's the PC determining the
flows for someone else, for third dynamics, etc.  How could you use flow
processes in session to keep ruds in?  Suppose the PC keeps coming up with
session withholds.  How about tripping one of the other flows, e.g. run "What
have you outflowed in this session?" to balance all his withholds, then get
when he started not wanting to outflow, get the objection to the outflow off,
and the tendency to withhold vanishes.  Or ask, "Have you been inflowing?" The
PC says, "Yes.  Auditing commands." You don't have to Q and A with it; just
accept it, and the PC has blown it.  You don't have to take up all the PC's
withholds, by the way.  Let blown overts and withholds expire when they are
blown; don't try to remedy a nonexistent situation.  On any flow line, what
you want to know is when it started (roughly) and how long it has been going
on, and whether the phenomenon (whatever it is) happened again, etc.  Just
give it a lick and a promise when used as ruds.  A PC who is going
sporadically out-ruds has a flow out that you haven't spotted.  You could use
a once-over on beginning ruds, too, on flows.  This all gets what the PC is
doing that he isn't communicating.  It's all basically withholds that mess him
up.  So the flows direct his attention to the things he hasn't told you.

     As long as the auditor has the desire to assist the PC and to keep him
communicating, the auditor can straighten the PC up and keep the session going
under almost any conditions.  An auditor can interfere with a PC's comm to him
in various ways.  There are obsessive withholds on other people, for instance
(e.g. a cop restraining people from committing crimes or a tax collector
getting people to outflow).  If an auditor is dramatizing some such valence,
he will prevent the PC's comm or make him talk after he's said all.

     Auditors always talk too much.  An auditor who talks too much is, for the
PC, a confused area which the PC can't reach, so the PC cannot talk into the
area.  Since the PC's havingness is often down anyway, the auditor's talking
can reduce it to the point where the PC dopes off.  Processes that clean up
the auditor for the PC make the auditor more have-able: "Who would I have to
be to audit you?" or "What don't I know about you?" would help.  Generally,
it's a bad idea for the auditor to use his body for anything, in the session.
One exception is that if the PC believes the auditor is too enturbulative. you
can run, "Put your hand on my shoulder," repetitively.  A few commands of this
will help by giving the PC the illusion of being able to reach the auditor.
The auditor who tries to put the PC on an obsessive withhold is, of course, a
poor auditor.  The other extreme is the auditor into whose zone one must never
reach, the auditor who "runs away" by, say, changing processes before they are
flat.  The PC will be aware of this more than the auditor, as no-auditing.

     The difficulties you have as an auditor are of your own making and stem
from using ritual to avoid auditing.  There is no substitute for sitting down
with the PC, using what you know of the mind, auditing his case, finding what
it is, squaring it up, etc.  All for the PC, with auditing intended.  If you
have other considerations entering into it, criticising the PC, or whatever,
you won't get much auditing done.

