6311C07 SHSpec-322 Relationship of Training to OT

     You are very fortunate people, to come all the way down the track, having
done all those stupid things, and to wind up here with a chance out.  The
chance is as good as you can audit, and not a bit better.  The number of
raw-meat PCs that will go out through the roof is nonexistent.  Unless they
become fully trained auditors, they won't make it.  The raw meat case is very
easy to audit, but what you are doing is auditing the charge off the top
RI's.  A scientologist appears to be a tougher case because the charge is off
of those.  You will have to find the two top RI's, now. and go on down the
bank.

     You can't go on and run the bank on someone who hasn't a clue about his
mind, who doesn't know what is there, frontwards and backwards.  The PC's RI's
only disintegrate when found in their right locations, even though they can be
found out of position.  So don't worry about a case getting messed up by RI's
being found in the wrong place.  Goals which have already been run can mess
things up.  All you can do if an RI or a GPM has been run is to date them.
Even after you have run an RI, you can verify it by dating.  The reason for
this is that, in running it, you pulled it a little out of its own
time-sphere.  So you can still get a bit of a bang on dating it and
reorienting it.  You are just getting the idea of it, which is still there in
position.  The mass is already gone.

     Sooner or later, someone will take a lot of clay and work out the mind
with the PC, an unusually smart PC, who will get it and go on being audited,
with understanding, but this will be a very rare occurrence.  Getting someone
to be responsible for a session occurs on a gradient.  The people who start on
an HCA course, etc., are already pre-selected, just by the fact that they
enrolled.  Any of them, including any upper-level auditor, including LRH, gets
nervous over PCs, wondering if the TA is moving, the PC doing OK, etc.  That
is to be expected.  People who persist into upper levels of training are
further pre-determined by their willingness to continue in the face of
struggle and disappointment.

     There is an additional problem:  Where do you take over the PC's itsa, so
as to allow him to itsa just enough, neither cutting it short nor letting the
PC wander around mucking things up.  These points vary from PC to PC, and with
the same PC, as he gets more able.  Some PCs have good perception, and if they
say it is so, it probably is so.  With other PCs, you can count on it. that if
they say "It's a _______ ," it isn't.  You should be increasing the PC's
perception of and confront on his own bank.  So as the PC gets closer to OT,
you should have him in good enough shape so that he can perceive what is there
to be run next.  Where you can deduce change in the PC, you are, of course,
changing the values by which you audit.  Also, the PC's itsa can deteriorate,
if he has had some loses and the case is going sideways and backwards.  You
will have to take over more responsibility for directing his attention, until
he is fixed up.  Cases are always different from one moment to the next.

     Low-level cases "run on 'fat'....  They have charge leaking out of their
ears." When you have gotten off the "fat" that exists on the two top RI's, you
have got the whole bank to deal with.  Now you have to be a genius to find
some "fat" to get off the case, and the case is more likely to get ARC broken
from the aspect of cleaning cleans.  This makes you a very good auditor.  What
happens when someone is in the position of doing R4?  They are probably
somewhat trained by now, but they will need more training.  The surest way to
get to be OT is to be a highly trained auditor, for various reasons, including
the aplomb that it takes to confront the bank.  A case is on its way to OT
when the first GPM has been run out.  This can take up to two years after
finding the first (not necessarily the most recent) goal.  Running out that
first (top) GPM is more Hell for the PC than anything the thetan has thought
of confronting, and this is true for several reasons:  the state of the
technology, the hazards of the auditing, possible errors, previous errors, the
lack of the PC's perception of the PT GPM because of its PT restimulators,
etc., etc.  Raw meat, not understanding what is happening, won't put up with
it.  They can't confront it.

     Even though a goal is an incorrect goal, it could be that only its
position is incorrect, not its wording.  You can get wrong items, a wrong line
plot, for an implant GPM, without turning off the rocket read.  But if you
take an actual GPM and try to run it on an implant pattern, it turns off the
rocket read right now, and it turns off any other meter phenomena as well.

     There is another horrible datum:  An actual goal, invalidated, will now
behave like a wrong goal.  It will turn on the same creaks as a really wrong
goal.  The PC will ARC break the same way.  It will read as a wrong goal.  It
will turn off ARC breaks when indicated.  And so forth.  So now, after you do
a case analysis, prepcheck everything found, so that you don't discard an
actual goal.  It is possible that a wrong goal, sufficiently asserted and
validated, might behave like a right goal.  One thing will still be the case:
any actually wrong goal, or an actual goal run as an implant goal, will turn
off the rocket read within two or three items.  This saves you from running a
wrong goal.  You won't have any rocket read to run it with!  What is dangerous
is that an actual goal, thoroughly invalidated, will be consistently discarded
by the auditor.  He and the PC agree that "to spit" is a wrong goal, and they
continue looking for the next GPM in line or the PT GPM, but they will never
find it.  Many are called, and few ever hit the top of the bank.  These are
the sorts of errors that can occur and that make R4 Hell for PC and auditor.
Nothing will make it easier, because that is happening with all the data, the
best-trained auditor, and the most educated PCs.  R4 takes a high degree of
skill, compounded with a phenomenal degree of luck.

     With hindsight, one can see how things got off the track, but as one
proceeds, one is walking in the dark with a thousandth of a millimeter
peephole.  What takes time in R4 is the mistake.  The worse R4 goes, the
harder it gets for the PC and the auditor to see what is the true state of
affairs.  However, don't put attention on not making mistakes, because the
effort not to make mistakes will produce mistakes, directly and indirectly.
Most of the auditing time is consumed in handling mistakes, and most of the
mistakes you make are in trying not to make mistakes.  Anything that can make
a meter go out, or any condition that can get you an erroneous read, is then
susceptible to throwing out a case analysis, and your own efforts to
straighten out a case analysis are susceptible to throwing out a case
analysis.  And a case analysis can be wrong in the first place.  OK.  Those
are the nerves with which you live.  So the only questions for a case analysis
and the only points of randomity should be:

     1. Exactly what is happening with this bank that I am handling?

     2. Exactly how is it going together?

     3. What are the contributive data I have, with which to make up my mind
        about the situations in this bank?

     So you have to have basic auditing and techniques down to the
no-attention state, because there are enough hazards and difficulties in case
analysis, so that you have no attention to spare for anything else.  The ideal
scene with the auditor and the PC is still going to be a porcupine-juggling
act.  You should be able to "think bank", so as to be able to parallel the
PC's mind well enough to figure out what is happening with the bank in front
of you.  That is plenty to confront and handle.

     Therefore training is a vital part of becoming an OT.  Thus, in the short
run, many are called, but few are chosen, though eventually all can make it by
the training route.

