6308C14  SHSpec-294 Auditing Tips

     1.  Audit to a gain, for a result.

     2   The PC is always right.

     3.  The significance is less important than the TA action.

     4.  "TA action on the right significance brings about faster clearing."

     5.  "The right significance and no TA action equals no case gain."

     6.  "Keep the itsa line in."

     7.  "Get TA action."

     8.  When training an auditor, get him to figure out how many ways you can
         cut an itsa line.  "The smoothest auditing is the auditing which
         least cuts the itsa line." "Auditor" means "listener".

     9.  "It takes a lie to hold aberration in place."

     10. Serious aberration surrenders easily.  "It's the mediocre-type
         aberration that takes the long haul."

     11. The primary difference between scientology and psychiatry is that
         psychiatry is authoritarian and tells the person what is wrong with
         him, often introducing a new lie.  Scientology finds out what is
         wrong with the person from the person, and then knows more about it
         than the person, but listens anyway.

     12. "Listening is the badge of Superior knowledge.  He who has privileged
         to listen." Only he who has no superior knowledge talks all the
         time.

     With this data, you could evolve all of scientology.

     Don't discount the knowledge of scientology, even though you don't use it
to evaluate for the PC.  If a PC feels unreal about having lived for, say, 30
trillion years, let him go through the unreality and run it out.  He will
natter about how unreal it is.  He has never talked about an unreality
before.  But in the process of talking about it, he is raising his ARC with
whatever it is, albeit slowly.  A PC has two kinds of talk: theta talk and
entheta talk.  Auditing consists of two actions, corresponding to these two
kinds of talk:

     1. Listening, with TA action.  This is getting theta talk out of the PC,
        keeping the itsa line in.  It is theta the PC is generating that is
        blowing his bank apart.

     2. Locating, e.g. by assessment, trapped charge.  "Entheta talk is
        handled by locating the impeded charge of theta which is barriered in
        the bank: BPC." This is the first step of putting in the itsa line:
        Find what trapped charge is trying to get loose.

     The PC is talking up out of the bank.  He has been protesting cut
communication lines, unrealities, and lack of affinity.  Charge has been
ticked and missed, and the PC will go on nattering unless the auditor locates
and indicates the charge.

     What about talking havingness down?  This only occurs when it is entheta
talk.  The whole phenomenon of havingness is raising ARC with the
environment.  If the PC is cutting his ARC with the environment, his
havingness will drop.

     How many ways can you cut an itsa line?  It would be beneficial to an
auditor in training to give you all the ways he can think of it, with an
example of each, and how to prevent or remedy it.  There are three parts to a
successful session:

     1. Get the PC in session, i.e. interested in his own case and talking
        about it.

     2. Keep the itsa line in, so that you get maximal TA action.

     3. Knock out the significances necessary to resolve the case fastest.

The above would define the super-skilled auditor.  You would get lower classes
of auditors as you cut out parts of this, until you end up at the bottom with
a Book Auditor whose skill is just to listen to the PC talk about his case,
with no idea of TA or right significance.

     When training auditors, pound one significance home at a time.  Don't get
complicated, and you will win.  For instance, on a co-audit, just keep the PC
talking about himself.  Don't worry about repeating the command or
acknowledging, etc.  All you want is the PC telling the auditor about his
troubles.  You can see improvements if the PC looks brighter and talks better,
i.e. if he shows increased ARC.

     As you move the auditor's skill up to using a meter, you want to get TA
motion.  Keeping the TA moving is the deepest problem in auditing, at
present.  This can get complex.  The reason a TA stops is time.  The type of
incident that is the most TA-stopping is the GPM, especially after it has been
redated, cross-dated, or grouped in one of the between-lives screens, and
after it has been mislocated.  If there were no GPM, probably nobody could
group a bank.  The GPM gets pinned down in the between-lives screens and TA
stops.  It is a time-stopper because it floats in time and appears instantaneous.  The auditing action that stops TA motion is wrong date.  It tends to group incidents.  If the incident is 3D visio and stays in the same place, as you run it, the date is OK.  If a person is running different incidents at once, he has a wrong date.  If you wrong-date a GYM, it is grim.  TA stops as if hit by a truck.  It is possible to date a GPM, but the reads on dates are tiny because it is a GPM, and it is very rough to date it.  After you have dated a GPM, the date is as valid as you get TA. If TA packs up, the GPM is very likely to have been misdated.  You could find that you have to redate a GPM when the PC gets off enough charge to spot that the first date was a screen date.  Your new date could still be only temporarily right.  You could go for seven sessions, getting it dated, which could be very fine if you kept the itsa line in and let the PC help you.

     Most of the track you see is real track, but it is often invalidated.
"False track" is nothing, because there really is no false track.  There are
false pictures, but "false track" is just the dub-in someone has put over his
actual pictures.  If you invalidate someone's track hard enough and hit him
hard enough, he puts dub-in over the top of the picture, which looks like the
original except that it has a little film over it.  As you audit it, the film
comes off and he sees the original picture.  The dub-in is not very different
from his own track, actually.  The unreality the PC gets about the picture is
the force and invalidation that has been laid in.  If you hit someone hard
enough, things get unreal, down to unconsciousness.  Unconsciousness is just a
total unreality.  So there are also ARC break phenomena, which prevent the
meter from reading well.  That is one reason why the meter reads so little on
GPM's.  They are full of ARC brokenness.  But if you just keep trying to date
the GPM and don't cut the itsa line, you will get TA.  Having the itsa line in
and blowing charge will increase the PC's reality on the incident to the point
where the date is more and more real.  Bundles of facsimiles will start to
come apart.  If you just keep chewing at a GPM in this way, chewing at its
date, its pattern, etc., it will suddenly be there so clearly that you will
wonder how you ever missed it.  You are getting enough charge off so that he
can see it.  Keeping the itsa line in while dating is very helpful but hard to
do at times.  Let the PC give you anything he can tell you about the date.
Get all the TA out of it first, and only go to the meter when the PC throws in
the sponge.  Then work it over, and when it is all hopeless with the meter,
talk from the PC takes over.  Keep at it, persevere, and relax.  It might take
up to seven sessions to get the date.  The stable datum is that if you keep
chewing away and trying to find it, suddenly enough charge will disappear so
it all folds up and you get it.  Just keep him talking, and he will come up
with it.  But the more you ask the meter for the data, the less you will win.
You can kill TA by evaluating, because the itsa line is being put in for him.
Don't put in the itsa line for the PC.

     The meter gives you a preview of coming attractions.  A meter reads at a
deeper level of awareness than the PC.  When some charge is blown, the PC will
now see what the meter "saw" awhile earlier.  You say what's-it and the PC
says itsa.  This is auditing.  But if the PC says what's-it and you use the
meter to say itsa, the TA folds up.  This will occur if you create a
meter-dependency.  It is better, if you must tell the PC what the meter says,
to present it as a question.  If you put in the what's-it and get itsa from
the meter, you will get no TA action.  If you have a PC demanding information, you can help him out.  It is more desirable to use the meter than to have the PC quit.  Sometimes you have to snap in the itsa line.  Try to get the PC certain before using the meter.  Then you may use the meter, but get the PC's agreement first, as an itsa, e.g. concerning the date.  You can work back and forth with the PC and the meter, using the meter to jog the what's-it, e.g. to get the order of magnitude, then ask the PC if he gets anything, let him find it.  If he asks, "Does that read?", see if you can get him to say, "Itsa," e.g. by asking, "Does it seem right to you?" Then, when he has said, "Itsa," you can confirm it with, "That reads."

     One way to cut an itsa line is by continually asking for more than the PC
can give.  For instance, the PC says proudly, "I've got a picture of some
mountains." The auditor says, "What kind of mountains?  Are there any people?"
Or when the PC says, "I just can't find the date.  I don't have a clue," the
auditor says, "Well?  Come on! What is it?" This stretches an itsa line beyond
its ability to stretch.  The situation is that you have bled off all the
restimulation that was available. So stir up a little more by using the meter
on one step or so of dating.  The PC easily invalidates his own reality and
ability to know a date.  Don't, above all, use the meter to invalidate him.
It is better to leave the charge on something than to ARC break the PC about
it.  If he gives you a date and asks for meter confirmation, and there is no
read, make it as OK as possible.  For instance, you could say, "Well, I didn't
see one there.  It doesn't say anything right now on that," Use your meter to
give him the what's-it line and coax the itsa line.  At last resort, all you
have is your meter, like when there is a howling ARC break and the PC isn't
talking or thinking.  That applies to sessions where the PC is out of comm.
You can cut an itsa line to ribbons with ARC break assessments, as the drop of
a hat.  The value of the assessment is when all else has failed, because the
most operating thing you have around you is the PC.

     The problem of how you discharge a GPM without cutting the itsa line is a
tricky one. What if he is going over one pair of items and the next pair comes
up and he wants to go on?  If you leave bypassed charge on the items you are
doing, he will ARC break.  One solution is to write down the new pair,
acknowledge them, and then clean up the old pair.

     The what's-it line raises TA; the itsa lowers it.  The solution of
mystery is the resolution of the case and the restoration of TA motion.  The
PC is stuck on a what's-it for which he has no itsa, when the TA quits.  The
PC sometimes has his own what's-its.  He forgets the what's-it you gave him
and never gives the itsa, so you get a high TA.  PC's do this all the time,
especially during a break.  Hence you could ask, "Is there anything your
attention is on?" or "Did you speculate about anything during the break?" The
funny thing is that as-ising what's-its doesn't give you auditing.  You can't
as-is what's-its.  You could ask, "Get the idea of questioning things,"
repetitively.  This would give you a high TA.  The bank is composed of a cure
to the problem or puzzle.  The reason that the puzzle is hung up is that there
is something in it that was a cure.  Cures brought about problems.  To as-is
problems, you have to pick up the cure, which is the itsa.  The problem was
the what's-it; the cure is the itsa.  So you announce the confusion, the PC
gives you the stable datum, and you get a restoration of balance.  It blows
off.  Two-way comm blows all the locks off of engrams.  For instance, if the PC says that he has a big PTP, you could ask when he became aware of it, what solutions he has had for it etc.  So you need to find the what's-it and the itsa.  A problem is, in microcosm, a GPM.  You could ask, "What have you been puzzled about?/ What answers might there have been to it?" Auditing questions must balance between announcing the puzzle and asking for the cure.

