6108C31 SHSpec-48  What is Auditing?

     There are two stages of poor auditing:

          1. The auditor audits naturally.

          2. Then learns the rules and audits all thumbs with the rules.

Eventually, the rules fall back to where they belong and he does fine.  The
basics of auditing are what they are.  You are auditing a human being.  The
auditing is addressed to a case.  Auditing must be done.  What is auditing?
Auditing is the PC in session, willing to talk to the auditor and interested
in his own case, and able to talk to the auditor.  Interested in own case does
not mean interested in session.  The session itself should never be
interesting.  Witch doctors maintained such a compelling presence that the
patient couldn't help being interested in the session.  This was the wrong way
to operate.  There was such complexity in the tech that it took half a
lifetime to learn.  E.g. the technique of a piercing scream followed by a
silence, then an hypnotic command, then resuming the scream at the same pitch and volume, or the ability to leap with a back somersault through the smoke hole of a wigwam or lodge and sit on the trees, so as to apparently disappear, then talk down through the hole in "spirit voices".  This would be so interesting that the patient would come back to life.

     In scientology, you walk into these expectations of what a healer is
supposed to be and do, but the fake is the guy who doesn't know model session
and can't do this or that, so he isn't an auditor.  You've got the
now-I'm-supposed-to's.  They've got potent reasons in back of them, but they
also become a badge of being a pro.  His ease in handling the form impresses
the PC and has a magical effect.  Omit some of the forms and the PC suspects
that there's something wrong with your auditing.  This can be ridiculous --
form for the sake of form and magical effect.  It's good to know and use the
forms, but auditing comes back to something else: running cases.  It's always
more important to run cases than to run according to form.  The form just
makes it easier, as a guideline.  When you're really expert, the form won't
even be apparent.  It'll just look like you're doing something effective.
This requires real skill.  You have to be completely comfortable with what you
are doing, making it look utterly natural while doing it utterly by the
rules.  In this respect, auditing is like doing Japanese paintings.  Doing it
by the rules makes it harder, because you have to be natural while doing it by
the form, which is artificial.  If you fall short of appearing totally
natural, you will fall short of total control.  There is a real art in using
rudiments without the PC noticing the order you're using, so he complies
because it's so natural that it must be addressed to him.  It is communication
that is compelling.  It must sound so casual that it sounds perfectly relaxed
and there's no question in your mind about what you are doing or where you are
going or what you are going to achieve.  And this very casualness seems to
speak of reserved power, like a Rolls Royce idling at the curb.  Ease is
power; strain is never power.  A quiet voice is more commanding than a loud
one.

     This is based on the effect scale, naturally.  It's easy for you to audit
a PC with tremendous control if you yourself are not anxious, if you are
confident you can control any part of the situation.  You are not trying to
interest him in the session, and he feels there's nothing for him to look at
but the bank; nothing to see but his case.  The ease with which you can do it
is based on confidence, which is based on wins and ability.  When you have
ideas that you won't win, your confidence drops.  The reality factor has to be
in, and if you are anxious about somebody's case, you'll appear anxious about
his case.  "I handle it another way.  I say, 'Gee, I sure am worried about
your case these days.'  The PC says, "Really?  I haven't been worried about my
case.  Why are you?' Well, you never say, "Gee whiz!  I just realized....'
You just keep on running this thing." This creates a much higher reality than
a robotic "I-am-going-to-audit-you-now-do-fish-fly?" If you look confident but
feel unconfident, he's likely to respond to your anxiety.  The more he
withholds this, the less he'll go into session.  It doesn't help the PC for
the auditor to be an unknown factor to the PC; as long as the auditor stops
short of eval or inval or Q and A, the auditor should keep the R-factor in.

     The reality factor begins in your command of your information.  If you
don't feel you have a command of the information, and you pretend to have a
command of your information, your session will come a cropper every time.  You
cannot help it no matter how hard you try.  A session goes to pieces only on
these points of unreality in the auditor in the auditor.  You can find the points of unreality by asking, "What did you disagree with in that session?" You'll find that's where things go awry, because there's no R in the session.  If there's no R, there's no A or C.  Don't think there is any lag on this.  When the R goes, the others drop at once.  You may become aware of them later.  The unreality entered into the session by the auditor causes the auditor to get peeved with the PC.  A session is basically an ARC activity.  If there's been high ARC in the auditor, it will materialize in the PC.

     A PC can look at his bank as well as he can communicate.  A good auditor
has a highly perceptive PC.  The same PC, audited by another auditor with low
ARC, is not as perceptive.  These factors have always existed.  If you feel
annoyance or anxiety with the PC, that will drop the R and cut C.  This can be
destructive to the PC, because the auditor projects a low perceptivity.  This
is one of the first factors that got in the road of dianetics.  Auditor
presence in the session varied.  An auditor who is confident creates an
auditing environment in which it is safe to depart into the never-never land
of the unknown.  So it's the auditor and the emotional tone of the session
which determine what takes place.

     When you've been auditing a long time and haven't cleared somebody, you
aren't operating on a very high level of confidence.  When you've seen
somebody get cleared, your confidence level goes up to hopeful.  When you've
cleared somebody, you get confident.  When you've cleared a string of them,
you get insouciant.  But that in itself is a reality.  When you've not gotten
results, you feel less confident about pcs, so you're auditing in an
environment which has low ARC in it.  A false note in the auditor's confidence
is always detectable.  The PC's attention goes off his case onto the auditor,
because he feels there's something here he doesn't know and there's something
unknown in the session.  Unknownness is the keynote, here.  The auditor
doesn't know whether he can produce a result or what he can do, or whether
he'll get the PC through, etc.  He has no determination of the final result.
To the PC, it adds up as the auditor not knowing, so there's a mystery in the
session.  The PC may try arduously to spot the not-know, because of the
mystery which sticks him.  The auditor can't keep the PC in session because
the PC's attention is on the auditor.  How much mystery does he smell?  LRH
would disabuse him of any mystery he can -- how long the session will be, if
that's relevant.  Any mystery about what's going on.  Just destroy it.  You
tell him what you are going to run, if you're going to ignore something, etc.

The ARC break disappears because so much R has been thrown into the session.

     Always try to make the PC right; never make the PC wrong, but don't make
the PC right at the expense of making yourself wrong.  If challenged because
of a legitimate flub, LRH would normally catch it before the PC does.  If he
doesn't, he figures he's slipping.  You should know more about what's going on
in the session at any given moment than the PC does; therefore you have more
R, therefore more control.  If the PC is telling you what's going on,
something is seriously out and probably has been for weeks.  The PC is not
always right, but the auditor doesn't have to tell him he's wrong.  There's no
need to prove anything to the PC.

     To prove is one of the basic games of the thetan, so the PC can easily
get into this games condition.  But if he does, something earlier is out --
some R-factor.  "I would never audit someone to electrify the community.
We've done it, and it's never been effective." It's the old "prove" game.  You don't use scientology to prove it works, because you've gotten into a games condition before you start, and an auditing session is not a games condition, and you should know it. Every homo sapiens is in a games condition.  This could easily take precedence over a session, so just don't play, because if you let it be a games condition, you'll both lose, since the PC won't let you get him better.  At the least whiff of a games condition, the PC will take off in that direction. As soon as you agree to have a game with the PC, auditing does not exist. When you drop out R, you've entered an ingredient which can lead to a games condition.  You're withholding something from the PC, so obviously there's a game.  Just the fact that you are doing this causes this atmosphere.

     Auditing is an activity of an auditor taking over control of and
shepherding the attention of, a PC, so as to bring about a higher level of
confront ability.  He has got to be able to confront more of what he has done
and is doing, etc.  You're not really changing the PC.  You may remove
valences, etc., which makes him appear to have changed.  But what you are
really doing is to extend the PC and to familiarize him with himself and his
bank and the universe on various dynamics.  So his attention has to be
shepherded, and not all by the automaticity of the auditing command, because
the PC is going to duck.

     You can count on the fact that every stuck picture is in some degree held
there, but the PC can look at the action surrounding the stuck point if he can
look at the stuck picture.  The indication that he can regard the action is
that he can regard the stuck picture which is blanking it out.  The PC is the
one who brought up the stuck picture.  Changes on cases which are rapid and
beneficial frequently come from shepherding the PC's attention, not from
permissive grind grind grind.  If the PC offers up something his attention is
on and the auditor refuses to help him look at it, the PC can get upset.  The
PC doesn't know what he's looking at.  He needs to be guided into looking at
what he hasn't confronted.  The PC often indicates he's in trouble by
sweating, screaming, writhing, etc.  The only fast way the auditor can get him
out is by not letting him escape.  The auditor shouldn't Dress for anything
except case gain.  Don't change a process because it isn't going fast enough.
Change the PC's attention.  The way out is the way through.  So if he's stuck
in something, move him through it.  An auditor can't do this if he has no
reality on what the PC is doing.  If the PC is looking fixedly, the way to
handle it is to get him to look a little further.  The stuck picture is a
stable datum which he's busily looking at to avoid looking at the confusion
around it.  When you get him to look at the confusion, the stable datum can
blow.  With a case that has a black field, ask what's on the other side of
it.  With an invisible field, or an "invisible" case with no pictures, get
which way he is looking and get him to look in a different direction.

     It's up to you to direct the PC's attention.  Why?  Because he himself,
in that very bank he has been in, has his attention fixed on these objects
solely for one reason: Because he has been powerless to direct his own
attention in that particular bank and in those particular situations.  If an
auditor doesn't do any attention-directing, the command alone will do it, but
far more slowly.  But there will be no ARC if the PC believes the auditor
doesn't care.  If you want fast clearing, you'll just have to get down to the
fundamental, which is that the auditor is someone who directs the PC's
attention through his bank.

