SHSBC 64


GRADES OF AUDITORS

A lecture given on 28 September 1961

Thank you. And this is what?
Audience:       September 28th.
It's the 28th. What month?
Audience:       September.
28 September 61. Well, you better ask some questions today. What question
do you have? Yes.
Female voice: I have a question. I would like to know, earlier you said in
a lecture that to be sure that the terminal is flat, you would check it on
the Prehav Scale at sensitivity 16. Is that correct?
Hm! It's an exaggerated check, but it's all right.
Female voice: Okay.
The best way to check to find out whether or not a terminal is flat is
clean up your rudiments. The more practical way is clean up your rudiments
and then check it with a high sensitivity.
Some people apparently have the idea, by the way, on flattening rudiments -
I've noticed one in passing - apparently have the idea that a rudiment is -
all levels on the whole Prehav Scale have to have been run on a terminal
before it can be considered flat. I just wanted to get that one very
straight. You only flatten those levels on the Prehav Scale on a terminal
which react. The terminal's being assessed with all rudiments in and no
level reacts, of course, it is flat.
But when you check a terminal on the Prehav Scale for a level, you ought to
get all of your rudiments in and then check your past level which you have
been running to find out whether or not it still quivers or merely do an
assessment. It doesn't matter what, you see. Your old level that you were
running is still on the Prehav Scale. But before you do any changes with
regard to the Prehav Scale on what you have been running and what you
should be running - before you do any changes at all - get your rudiments
in and then check.
Now, before you bring a terminal or a goal to somebody else to be checked,
you yourself should check it out, find out if that is the goal (in checking
a goal that somebody else is going to recheck) and then get all the
rudiments in and then check it yourself and find out if it's active.
Otherwise, you're - just a bunch of useless checking and appointments and
that sort of thing. But you see, there's another way of going about this.
Instead of having the person throwing the responsibility for checking it
off on the person who is going to do the checking - well take the
responsibility yourself for the rudiment factor and then recheck it
yourself. Then when you take the terminal over to somebody else to be
checked - or the goal, whatever it is you're going to get checked - you'll
know for sure that it's going to continue to react or not as the case may
be.
In other words, you've actually checked it yourself before you had it
checked. Because what does a terminal check consist of? It consists of a
goals check. It consists of first checking the rudiments, you see and then
checking the goal. Or first checking the rudiments, then checking the
terminal; first checking the rudiments, then checking the level.
And when you're doing checking on somebody else's goals or terminals, when
you're doing this, that is the first thing you should do - the first and
foremost thing you should do properly and at once. The person comes in to
be checked, you check out the rudiments. If the rudiments are out, you
don't check the goal or terminal or a level. You don't go that far. It just
gives the pc another invalidation, don't you see. See, because you're
actually now checking him with the rudiments out.
Now, you as checker do not put the rudiments in. You merely find out
whether or not they are out. And then you give the pc back to the auditor
to have the rudiments put in. Otherwise, you are violating the Auditor's
Code - too many auditors.
Now, you should know - in this unit particularly - you should know how to
check a terminal, check a goal and check a level and how to patch them up
if they're out. You should know this definitely because an HCO Policy
Letter has just come out which grades auditors. It puts auditors into four
classes in HGCs and the whole system depends on their having somebody that
has had the Saint Hill Briefing Course. That's part of the rundown.
In other words, you could never have a Class Ill - grading on up the line,
Class I being the lowest class - you could never have a Class III Auditor
unless you had had somebody in the organization on the Saint Hill Briefing
Course because the requirement of it is that they be trained by somebody
who has been trained at the Saint Hill Briefing Course or of course, had
been trained on the Saint Hill Briefing Course.
This classifies - reclassifies auditors. Classifies them in four grades.
This is for purposes of staff use in organizations, which you'll find this
gets very widely reflected. Part of that bulletin is your lecture of
September 26, 1961. That's part of the bulletin. The lecture I gave you
about how to train up auditors in the field.
I'll explain this bulletin to you a little bit because it'll be in your
hands shortly.
Auditor comes in. You say, "What have you had success with?"
He says, "Well, I've had success with Rising Scale Processing."
You say, "All right. That's all you can run on pcs."
And you'll get better - you get better pc gains. That's all.
Now until this person is ready for and can be checked out as and classified
as Class II as an auditor, that's all he does. He takes a process that he
himself has had some success with, all right? Whatever process that is as
long as it's Scientology and that is all he is permitted to run on pcs.
You'll find out it's ordinarily 8-C or it's Havingness of some kind or it's
SCS and Connectedness or it's something like this. See, he'll have had some
spectacular wins in his own line. So what are you doing? You're making sure
that your staff auditor gets some wins and that your HGC pc gets some wins.
You're making absolutely sure of this right at the in - at the onset.
Now, to get an auditor to audit something with which he is not familiar, on
a pc and in which he has no confidence, of course asks for the auditor to
get a lose. And it asks for the pc then to get a lose because he's being
audited with an auditor who has absolutely no confidence. Right?
Now, a Class II Auditor is one who has been checked out on the fundamental
bulletins which you have to be checked out on with a perfect score. He's
got to have had perfect scores on all of these bulletins and on the tape of
the 26 of September 1961. He's got - in other words, to know Security
Checking cold. And if he can pass all those things with a perfect score, he
becomes a Class II Auditor and all he is permitted to do on anyone is
security check them. That's all he does. He doesn't do anything else.
And then we have a Class III Auditor. And a Class III Auditor is one who
has had some success in Security Checking and has done a good job of it and
who has checked out everything necessary to the handling of Routine 3.
Knows how to assess, in other words and knows all this cold. And when that
person knows all those things cold - we don't let him audit these things on
pcs while he is learning them, you see - after he's got them all cold with
a perfect score, we call him a Class III Auditor.
All right. Now, he can run, then, SOP Goals on pcs, but part of that
requisite to become a Class III Auditor is to have been trained at Saint
Hill and have had a course completion. Of course, that's understood and I
don't think it's even mentioned in the bulletin or to have been trained,
which is mentioned in the bulletin, by somebody who has graduated from the
Saint Hill Briefing Course. So a Central Organization couldn't make a Class
III Auditor unless they had somebody present who had been here that was
training them.
All right. Now, that goal and terminal has to be checked out by the Saint
Hill Briefing Course person. We permit none to be run that aren't checked
out by the Saint Hill Briefing Course person. In other words, a goal and
terminal that has not been checked out by a Saint Hill graduate cannot be
run on a - on a Central Organization pc. That's it, bang.
It's no nonsense about this because it's far, far too dangerous, it's too
touchy and you will find that they will run the wildest hobbies you ever
heard in doing assessments.
For instance, a guy just can't stand the idea of being a ship captain. So
if the pc's goal is to go to sea and the terminal is a ship captain, he
isn't going to let him have it. That's it. He's always had an ambition, you
see, to be a - himself, he's always had an ambition to be an accountant. So
he gives him the terminal "accountant." Of course, every time you mention
accountant, it ARC breaks the pc so you get reactions, so it is obviously
the terminal, isn't it?
If you don't think this isn't prevalent in the human race, look at the
conduct of so many fathers. Wherever you've had a father or a mother
failing in her goals line, she insisted on the child doing a life continuum
of that and there it is.
So now that's a Class III Auditor and once more the requisite is a perfect
score on examinations. And these examinations - same type of examination as
you're taking here. You get constantly examined on these things. Possibly
they won't be constantly examined on these things. They will be asked to
study these things very hard and pass their examination on them, but must
be a perfect score and the examination must be a minute examination. You
know, the niggling, the exact word. You get down to the exact word.
That gets pretty grim, but it's the niggling type of examination of you
found some obscure fact, way down in the corner of the bulletin that nobody
ever noticed before and you ask him that and he fails it and then he's had
it, see.
It's that type of examination. Very niggling, you know. Very, very nasty.
"How many lines are there on bulletin of..."
He says, "I never counted them, you see."
"Well, that's it. You flunk." I mean, that's - that's going pretty extreme.
But if they failed to answer perfectly any question you ask them, they have
flunked it. They have flunked the whole examination. It's very easy to
examine this way. Let me point out to you. Maybe you've been examined this
way consistently and continually, but you may not have noticed the
mechanism. You maybe have been so involved with getting examined that you
didn't notice how the examination was being done.
The proper way to examine on these things is the person goes over all of
the material as a unit. That is to say, he takes the HCOB on which he's
being examined. He studies this HCOB and then he takes his copy of it into
the Examiner and gives his copy of it to the Examiner. That's the way he
should do it. Or in a case of a tape, the Examiner has the examination. And
the Examiner asks questions until the student flunks. And that flunks the
whole examination. He doesn't ask any further questions after the flunk.
Well, this makes for very rapid examination. Now, we've all been
super-educated into the idea that it was all right to get 70 percent. Well,
I'll tell you. You can't get 70 percent of a question on a Security Check
clear. You can't have 70 percent of a goal right. So there goes the old
traditional of 70 percent, you see. It has to be perfect.
The Security Check has to be perfect. And the goal has to be perfect.
And the terminal has to be perfect. And the level has to be perfect. And
the auditing command has to be perfect. And there's no compromising with
it.
So, of course, you can't compromise with examinations. So anyway, that's a
Class III.
And then you get up to a Class IV Auditor. And a Class IV Auditor can do
all these other things and can run engrams on assessments and runs SOP
Goals on pcs, plus engrams.
Now, the rest of this is not discussed in this particular policy letter,
but I might as well say a word or two about it since you will probably -
all of you, sooner or later, will receive the full brunt of this thing
because we have just launched the campaign which makes Clears in HGCs. This
is the first shot actually. The first official, noncompromising,
no-more-pep-talk, this-is-what-we're-going-to-do, see.
I think you will agree that that is a very, very practical method of going
about it because it permits HGC pcs to come in and get results. And it
permits auditors to get wins and it inhibits flubs.
Now, we have grooved training in to a point where it isn't changing. There
isn't anything changing about training. Hasn't been for quite some time.
There have been some roundups, horse wrangler-type activities. You'll get
the full brunt of this when you get back into an area where you are having
to train up people and so forth, you will do a lot of horse wrangling. Just
make sure you don't Q-and-A with the escaping pony.
Extraordinary solutions: All of you will err sooner or later - all of you
will err sooner or later - in dreaming up the extraordinary solution to fit
the extraordinary case that exceeds all rules. You'll all err in this
direction sooner or later. The only thing I ask of you is catch yourself
when you find yourself doing it. Because of course, you always get a flub
with the pc. Extraordinary solutions are only required when the basics of
auditing are violated and that is an extraordinary solution, definition of.
That activity which somebody thinks he ought to do because all the basics
of auditing have been flubbed. The extraordinary solution.
In other words, we have to do an extraordinary type of process on this
particular pc. Why do we have to do an extraordinary process? Well, that's
because we didn't do the basic process.
This is horse wrangling. And you got this crowd of ponies. And it's out on
the wide, wide-open prairie and there's no fence in any direction. And
you're trying to tell them there's a road here. And they know better than
that, see, and they all say, "Well, there's no road here. Look there's just
wide-open prairie; there is no track. And nobody knows how to do any of it.
And there isn't any right way. And besides there are eight thousand hundred
million other ways to do all of these things." And they just invent them
all the time, consistently and continually and you have to keep saying,
"Well, there's a road."
Actually, there is a road. It's four lanes, it's concrete, marked with
sodium-vapor lights the whole distance, you see. But they're odd ponies and
they're blind to this phenomenon. They're blind to the roadway and they
say, "Well, it's just open prairie." And you have to keep pointing out the
road, you know.
And you point out the road until they themselves have a reality on the fact
that there's a road there. You don't make them follow the road because
they're afraid you will hit them. That's the naval, military-governmental
method of doing it. You take all the revolt out of people by beating them
down.
No, there's quite another way of handling the whole situation, but only
bright people can do it and that is you take the randomity out of the
situation by pointing out to people that there is a fact. There is
something there. There is a reality to be gained and you educate them until
they gain that reality. And you go ahead and work at it and you'll
eventually find that they're able to stand up to this and say, "Well, what
the heck. There is a reality here. Well, what do you know? What do you
know?" There's something to be found out.
"Oh, well, you know, I never pay any attention to those TRs. I mean, I just
audit, you see. I'm just natural. And that's why I have my feet over the
back of a chair and.. . ." You know. And finally, in horror, one fine day,
finally in horror, they suddenly discover that the reason they don't audit
with the TRs is because they can't. That's the first - about the first
great discovery that they make, you see: that they never have gotten an
acknowledgment across to a pc as long as they've ever been auditing.
There's something there to be done.
Up to this time they didn't think there was anything there, you see. It was
just a number. And this type of thing. Well, there is no trick to Goals
Assessment. You just ask the fellow, "What do you like to do in life?"
The fellow says, "Well, I don't know. I'd like to have a Pepsi Cola."
And the fellow says, "All right. Well, let's see, who would have a Pepsi
Cola?"
Well, the fellow says, "I would."
And "Good. 'I.' All right. That's good enough. Now, let's assess it on the
Prehav Scale, that's fine. All right. Now I don't happen to have a copy of
the Prehav Scale right now. Think of doing something."
"Oh, I don't know. Going. Going to have a Pepsi Cola."
"All right. That's fine. That's the level we'll run. Where are you - where
are 'I' going?"
Yeah, they will do a thing like that if they didn't realize that a person
has just one goal and they just have one terminal and they just have one
level. They realize that and as soon as they realize that, they say, "Oh,
but wait a minute. How the hell do you find these things?" And then, will
ensue, possibly, the same cycle that has ensued since February.
Unless you had a reality on the fact that it could be found, wouldn't find
it. I mean, that's why they weren't found. I mean, there's nothing more
esoteric to it than that.
They didn't think they could be found, you know. And it was just all a good
idea. But there wasn't any reason to really do anything very serious about
it, because, you know? And you'll find right here in this unit, is -
occasionally, where somebody's terminal has been messed up. You know,
somebody wouldn't let him have his terminal, auditor will turn right around
and won't let the other fellow have his terminal. You have people auditing,
finding terminals - . I beg your pardon. There was one other condition to
Class III Auditors. Class III Auditors had to have had found their goal and
terminal.
There's a clause in Class II Auditors that isn't there but probably should
be. They have to have passed a full Security Check. That would be a very
good one to add in. Probably will get added in.
Anyway, it's a part of Class IV. The Class IV Auditor, of course has to
have had an engram run on his goals-terminal line successfully. He has to
have had a subjective reality on this here action.
So all of these things are based on subjective realities. And your job in
instructing, and your job in handling such people, of course, is to keep
them steered and sooner or later, they will collide with one of these
realities. You know, up to that time, it's doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt,
doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt,
pretended know, pretended know, pretended know, doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt,
pretended know, pretended know, doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt.
Well, that's just a bunch of ponies wandering all over the prairie and they
don't think there's any road to travel on and nothing of the sort and any
bunch of grass is a bunch of grass and - no criteria, in other words. It's
- no sensibility. And you just have to keeep it rounded up.
And sooner or later one of these here ponies will start walking on the
concrete and he will say, "Wa - whoa, what do you know. Wait a minute. Wait
a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I got a hoof on something here."
And they put it over here on the prairie. "That's different. That's
different. Ah, haaaa! Hey! Hey!" Turn around and tell you, you know. "Hey,
you know there's a road here?"
And you - you generally, being of kind heart, you ordinarily respond - if
he hasn't been an exceptionally dumb pony - and you'll respond and you'll
say, "Well, yes, that's right. I'm awfully glad you find it - you'll -
you'll be very happy with - found it."
But every once in a while, he's been a particularly obtuse pony. And has
been - kept falling into arroyos and doing other things, you see. Anything
but trying to find the road. You almost can't restrain yourself from
saying, you know, "That's what I've been trying to tell you. What did you
think that was?" See? Kind of make him guilty for being so stupid.
But the truth of the matter is until they find out this one phenomenon, you
know, that there is something there to walk on and there is something
there, why they - you'll just - you just can't round them up, that's all. I
mean they have an awful time. They're all over the place.
And that's what normally happens in HGCs. Auditors come in. They pay lip
service to all these things that are supposed to exist. And they hope they
exist. And they got a fair reality that they do exist. And they think they
do exist, I hope. And then there's no reason to do any of them. See? No
real reason to do any of them. Because nobody would ever know whether they
had done them or not because actually "There are no factors. Are there?
Maybe?" You get the idea? It's just all sort of mush.
So this IV scale is based on certainty and a common denominator of it is
how certain is the fellow of his mind. And you let him walk on certainties
the whole line.
Well, somebody who has been educated HPA/HCA level has some kind of a
certainty. He winds up with some kind of a certainty, if he wants to audit
at all. He's got some kind of a certainty. Something. Doesn't matter how
dim. He ran "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting" on somebody and it
turned on a somatic. And so he said, "That's unusual. That's very odd." And
so he goes home and he gets ahold of his elder brother or something and he
says, "Hey!" he says, "What's something you wouldn't mind forgetting? Sit
down in the chair. Yeah. What's something you wouldn't mind forgetting?
What's something you wouldn't mind forgetting? Yeah. Good. What's something
you wouldn't mind forgetting?" Turns on a somatic in him, you know. "Yeah.
Well, there's something here." And all of Scientology becomes "Something
you wouldn't mind forgetting." That's the whole lot. There isn't anything
else in Scientology but just that one process.
Now, you, as the D of P, take this person, you put him on staff and you say
to him, "All right. Now what we want you to do is take this E-Meter. I want
you to security check this pc and get this thing all straightened out. And
I want you to do this, I want you to do that, I want you to do the other
thing. And make sure that you get all the rudiments in and so on. That's
enough for you. Now, let's see. Now, Joe, how about you?"
Person walks off, stands in the hall a minute and says, "You want me to do
this? Well.. ." He knows what he ought to be doing. See. He ought to be
going - running this pc on "Something you wouldn't mind forgetting," you
see.
So he does a very - he tries. He tries hard. And it's all to his credit
that he does try hard. And that he goes in and he actually tries. He tries
to follow these instructions and he tries to do these things. And that's
fine. He tries. Nothing much ever happens either here. But he tries. Where
as a matter of fact, he'd be cocky as a grenadier, if he - after the
winning battle, if he were just told, "Well, all right. Now, you see that
pc over there? Well, you just take him up to that room there. And what
process do you have a great deal of reality on? What have you had some wins
with?"
"Well, it's 'Something you wouldn't mind forgetting'."
And you say, "That's fine. That's what you run on that pc. You just take
him right up there in the room."
Happy as a clam, man. Of course, he'll get some results. He evidently can
run it. And most - most pcs could benefit from it, so what have you got to
lose? Nothing.
Same way with Security Check. A person who has had no Security Check run on
them - doing a Security Check? Hah!
You'll find people will give you all kinds of reasons why they can't give
Security Checks or they don't want to give Security Checks or what they
don't think Security Checks are. All their doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt,
pretended know and uncertainties and so forth, all come up in a horrendous
black tornado, right about the time you say, "Do a Security Check." What's
basically wrong is that the individual doesn't have any reality on a
Security Check ever doing anything for anybody and of course, has
withholds.
You get a person with a lot of withholds doing a Security Check and they do
a fantastically oddball job. Very peculiar. A very peculiar job. Let me
tell you. They're going to make all kinds of flubs. Well, they're all
natural. The flubs are just natural and they will usually leave questions
unflat on which they themselves have withholds. All kinds of oddball things
occur.
So a person has to know Security Checking cold and also, as should be in
the policy letter, should have complete clean hands on Security Checks,
before you turn them loose on Class II things. Now you'll find out that
they get their best results on pcs by Security Checking. And they can
Security Check this way. By the time they're all groomed up on Security
Checking and they know - they've had lots of experience with Security
Checking, and that sort of thing, why, they get very fancy with it indeed.
And you can do some very fancy things with Security Checking.
Oddly enough, because we haven't pushed Security Checks very hard. Not even
you have - have the - a total reality on what fantastic things you can do
with a Security Check. You've got a reverse reality. You know what weird
things can happen to a case who does gather up a whole bunch of withholds
he hasn't let go of. See? You've got that reality.
Well, there's another reality there to be found and that is what you can
actually do with a person with a Security Check on the positive side of the
ledger. And that's pretty, pretty wide. And now that I've pointed this up
to you, I'm sure you're slugging ahead and doing something with it and all
of a sudden the stars will be dawning in all directions.
And as far as Routine 3 is concerned - well, what the hell. It's too wild
to even contemplate until you've found a pc's goal and terminal. Skip it,
man. Till a person really knows his business and has found a goal and
terminal on the pc, they will do all sorts of wild things. And the first
wild thing they will do is take forever to assess.
Why do they take forever to assess? Well, they know it isn't there. They
don't think it's there. They don't really realize it's there. They haven't
any reality that they will be able to do it. They get very disheartened.
These "forever assessments" are hinged on the rudiments being out. That is
the mechanical fact. But the background music to it actually is that they
don't think it's possible. Otherwise, they would be in there pitching.
They're wandering all over the prairie, you see and there's no road. And
when they get a reality on the fact the pc has one goal, the pc has one
terminal, the pc has one level and no other - doesn't have two - and when
they suddenly get that as a reality, why you'll have people who can do some
Routine 3 work.
As far as engrams are concerned, it's absolutely catastrophic to take
somebody who has never had an engram run and ask him to run an engram. That
is wild. If you want randomity, just set that going. Once you've had an
engram run, why, you can run engrams.
Well, I just wanted to give you this particular rundown. I know this will
be put into effect by Central Organizations particularly because the first
Association Secretary that heard about it at once added something to it and
said, "Well, that is an opportunity to - to change the pay scale of staff
auditors." Very highly practical consideration and that's a sufficiently
practical consideration that will back up the - the sensibilities of it and
there we go.
This is our first elephant-solid step in the direction of full HGC
clearing.
Now, I'd better say something about the workability of this in running any
kind of a clinic or a group of auditors because all of you, whether you
like it or not, will wind up somewhere in that direction, whether in
Central Organizations or otherwise.
And that is that the auditor who have gone through Class I and Class II and
Class III and is now a Class III, you would say then that auditor - all
that auditor did, you see, was do the full of Routine 3. Well, that's not
necessarily true, you see. This auditor could do the assessment. Could do
the assessment and could handle the assessment factors and handle some of
the basic runs, but wouldn't have to handle the Security Checks, because
you got auditors around that can handle the Security Checks, don't you see.
So a pc could then be audited by two auditors - one who is a Class II and
one who is a Class III.
And then supposing you had one Class IV in the whole shop. Well, when
engrams got ready to be run, he'd run them. You see how that could work
out? Now, that's apparently at first glance a violation of the Auditor's
Code, but it isn't. Because you're not changing the auditor on what the pc
is auditing. This is an interesting point.
In other words, if you change the pc's auditor on what the pc is being
audited on, you will have trouble. But you can always have somebody else
running something else and that happens very often. It's only when that
becomes a withhold that it becomes very disastrous - being audited every
night by one auditor and aren't telling the other auditor in the daytime
that they're being audited on the same thing and this really gets to be
quite a mishmash. And that is upsetting.
But you can do this other one. You can push a pc into the HGC and you would
let him be run for a while, until you had somebody who could do something
else about it, by a Class I Auditor. And then you get a Class II Auditor
devoted to it on something on the order of two-and-a-half hours a day or
something like that, you see. And you can give him a general run on SCS and
Connectedness or something in the morning and in the afternoon they'd be
getting security checked by a Class II Auditor, you see. You could split it
up this way.
And then that could move over to where a Class III Auditor was doing the
morning, you see and a Class II Auditor doing the afternoon and that way
you could handle more pcs with more advantage.
In other words, you could mix up the auditors on a pc and you could
straighten this thing out and you keep the pcs moving. And you'd find out
this was quite successful and the fact glares now that HGCs must start
clearing. And this is a very firm, forward motion in that particular
direction and it hinges on this Saint Hill Briefing Course.
Well, if there's anything you don't know about checking terminals or
anything you don't know about this particular thing before you get out of
here, you certainly better find out because you'll find yourself in a lot
of embarrassment someplace or another. Because you're supposed to know.
And of course, I'll help you out. I'll say, "Well, when they leave here,
they know all about it. Yes, yes. Well, I know. Yes, Bob was here for quite
a while. He was here all summer. Yes, he certainly knows all about that.
Yes, well, you just ask him."
And the only esoteric thing that you're going to run into is you're going
to run into the imponderables - the pc who doesn't move, the pc who doesn't
respond, the pc who just nothing happens with and your temptation - because
that is what is being urged on you all the time by a Class I Auditor - your
temptation is consistently to dream up an extraordinary solution. There is
your first temptation.
I know. I did it for years, and so on. Finally recognized what I was doing
and your only fault is not recognizing what you're doing. Go ahead and
dream one or two up and lay a gorgeous egg, but recognize what you're
doing. You're avoiding the fundamentals and cutting it in someplace else
with some extraordinary solution of some kind or another. It is always a
gross auditing error. I don't care what the staff auditor said he was
doing. I don't care what the field auditor said he was doing. That had
nothing to do with it.
If that case isn't moving, there is a gross error. It is always a gross
error and when you think up an ordinary solu - extraordinary solution, you
just perpetuate the gross error. And that's why the extraordinary solution
is wrong. You haven't actually found out what was going on. Gross error.
I'll give you an idea. A Clear down in South Africa. Two cases not moving
on CCHs. Absolutely not moving. Not moving, not moving, not moving, not
moving, not moving, any way, shape or form. Nothing happening, that sort of
thing. And this couldn't be called, at first glance, a gross error because
the CCHs - you're just supposed to run the case, don't you see.
Well, actually, the gross error was the CCHs were being run wrong or they
would have done it. It was simple, wasn't it? See? We - so we got a datum
in our laps to the effect the CCHs aren't working on two cases. Well, our
first impulse is to say, "Well, let's do something else that is new and
marvelous and strange because the CCHs aren't working."
Your first job in rounding up ponies is to find out what they're doing.
Never take what the pony said he was doing. Find out what he was doing. And
that is very often, somebody who has a low reality on his tools, will often
tell you with good faith, that he has done all that and you have to have a
closer checkup on it.
Now that, by the way, was solved - down in South Africa, it was actually
solved not by doing the CCHs right. It happens to have been solved by the
Instructor going in and just asking these people if they had present time
problems and just cleaning up the rudiments and asking them with real
pressure and going really at it and discovering that they both did have and
blowing grief charges off both of them on their present time problems and
after that, even these misrun CCHs worked.
Well, that was an extraordinary solution, but didn't necessarily get CCHs
working, did it? So, there's a datum sitting there that the CCHs wouldn't
work on cases with present time problems. Yes, the CCHs would work, if run
right, on people with present time problems. But the easiest way to have
done it in this particular instance, of course, would have been to have put
the rudiments in, even though you were running the CCHs. If anybody had
ever done that, they would have found out something. But that is not a
particularly gross error. That's just a mishmash, see.
The gross error, of course, CCHs weren't run right. Of course, you can
always do something for a case by putting the rudiments in. So these two
things go together. And - but we have a misunderstanding when we come out
at the other end of it. And that is to say, the misunderstanding is the
CCHs don't work on some cases. Well, that's the misunderstanding. Yes, the
CCHs run wrong, don't work on most cases.
You sit somebody down and pump his hand for seventy-five hours and nothing
happens. You're violating the Auditor's Code in all directions. You're
running a process that is flat. You're running a process that isn't
producing change. Well, there you are.
All right. Let me tell you some more extraordinary solutions.
An extraordinary solution: The pc - we just can't clue what this pc is
doing. We just haven't got an idea what this pc is doing. The pc - God
knows! Well, we just keep running this and - and it - just don't know
exactly. Actually, we found the pc's goal and we found the pc's terminal
and it all seems to be all right, but nothing has happened.
Well, I don't know. There must be some other level to the Prehav Scale that
we're not running. Let's see. Let's - pc responds to "indignity." All
right. We'll run the level of the Prehav Scale "indignity." That must be
about the way it is. Yes. Well, we'll try that and after we've wasted a
dozen auditing hours, well, we try something else and after we've wasted
twenty-five more, we try something else. And after we've wasted fifty more,
we try something else. What was wrong in the first place? Gross auditing
error.
Since finding the pc's terminal, from there on, the pc had never done the
auditing command. Now, that is the most gross auditing error there is.
There is no more gross auditing error than that: to give a pc a command
which the pc does not then execute. Isn't that simple?
So, how do you think dreaming up new levels to the Prehav Scale is going to
do anything for this pc who has never done any level of the Prehav Scale
even after it was assessed, huh? Now, where is this going to come out? How
is this going to make things right? By adding new errors onto old errors,
we're going to wind up with what? New errors. So, there is no more gross
error than an auditor auditing a pc who is not doing the auditing command.
Now, let's define what is "not doing the auditing command." All right. Not
doing the auditing command is defined as: simply not executing it or doing
something else - or executing the auditing command indifferently and then
doing something else. You know, they say, "Well, have you ever - have you
ever shot a duck?" You know? And the pc says - thinks to himself dimly,
"Well, yes. I've shot a duck," and then applies it to his lumbosis, which
is hurting him today and says, "Well, let's see. I wonder if there could be
any shot in the lumbosis. I get the idea of mocking up some shot in the
lumbosis. Yeah, all right. That didn't work. Okay."
See? The pc is not being audited. The pc is - is answering the commands and
self-auditing. He's doing two things. You could say not executing the
auditing command, technically, could be expressed is: not doing it and not
just doing it - not just doing it.
Now, when a pc has a present time problem of long duration, the pc will
have a hidden standard and every auditing command which is given to the pc
- the pc then audits something else in ordder to affect the hidden standard
and they'll do it every time.
The pc had a headache, so you give the pc an auditing command and then the
pc has figured out that if he audits the mass against his stomach, that
this will affect his head. So the pc then does the auditing command against
the mass of the stomach, only and then sits back to find out if it has done
anything for his head and no matter what you say to the pc, no matter what
command you give to the pc, the pc does these things. He receives the
auditing command, thinks about it for a moment, gives you some kind of a
response, then applies it to the ridge in his stomach and then checks to
find out whether or not it has affected his head. So, he hasn't just done
the auditing command. See, he's done a lot of things.
The first time Mary Sue ran into this down in South Africa - as a very fine
example of this and really punched it into view - was auditing somebody who
was - had been audited for just - oh Lord! You know, just tremendous
numbers of hours. And everybody had been thinking up extraordinary
solutions for this fellow. Extraordinary! Absolutely extraordinary. I mean,
the most marvelous solutions had been thought of for this fellow's case. A
catalog of them would have filled the wall, you know. And just shelf after
shelf of books to all these beautiful solutions.
There was only one difficulty. The case had never done anything but audit
an electronic incident in an effort to change his sex. No matter what was
said to the pc, the pc then audited to the electronic incident because he
knew that if he got rid of the electronic incident, then his sex would
change. And for literally hundreds of hours, actually, the pc had never
done anything else. The pc then had a present time problem of long
duration. He did not want to be a man. It was a terrible problem to this pc
to be a man, so this was all the pc ever did.
Now, that is more broadly understood by the fact that any pc who has a
present time problem, particularly a present time problem of long duration,
will use the auditing command to resolve the problem, no matter what the
auditing command is. How do you like that? And that's why you can't audit
up against a present time problem. And that's why you can't leave present
time problems of long duration just floating. Because the pc will never do
the auditing command, they always do something else. So that's the most
fundamental error that could exist. And you could go on thinking up
solutions until your hair was down to your knees and you wouldn't ever have
the pc doing anything but just sitting there unchanged. Interesting, hm?
You must be inquisitive. You must find out what the pc is doing. Now, if
you have to find out too often and too much what the pc is doing, you
obviously have no confidence that your rudiments are in. Well, doesn't that
follow? Because if the rudiments were all in, the person wouldn't have a
present time problem of long duration or short duration. Awfully simple,
isn't it?
Now, the pc who applies the auditing command to a specific target may or
may not ever apply the auditing command to the terminal you just got
through assessing. Isn't that fascinating? That is very disheartening. The
pc with a present time problem of long duration will apply an auditing
command, not to their own terminal, but to the terminal which is troubling
them. And this may be the wrong terminal. So you think you are auditing a
ghost and you are busily auditing a sixteen-inch gun. I mean, that's as
stupidly simple as that, see. You're not running the pc's terminal. That's
all. And that's the gross auditing error.
Every time the pc answers the auditing question, you eventually find out
from the pc, realizing the pc is stalled in some fashion and has been for
some time... You see, you got a great apparency that you can get going
these days, marvelous apparency. You see, the Security Check the pc is
getting can give him a case advance. So, you look at the case advance the
pc is getting from a Security Check and you attribute it to the auditing
you're giving the pc - because the pc isn't receiving any auditing from
you. You see how that could work out?
The pc is receiving auditing from a Security Check, whether you're giving
it or not, but you think by running his terminal the pc is getting an
advance. Well, the pc isn't getting an advance if he's not doing the
auditing command. He might not be running a terminal. He might not have any
idea of the terminal. Always a good thing to ask the pc if they can get an
idea of this terminal and what is their idea of this terminal as they run
it, and so forth. And you'll find out very rapidly that the terminal they
are running is not the terminal you have just got through assessing. Isn't
that fascinating? Well, we get some kind of a case going where this fellow
is auditing - being audited on a - on a skin diver, and that's dandy. He's
having a marvelous time on a skin diver, but every time he answers the
auditing command, he actually applies it to Mary Ann. Well, he's in a state
of non compos mentis. He isn't thinking in this zone. It's not his fault,
because he is frozen in this particular zone. He is irrational on this
particular point of course, or it wouldn't be his terminal.
So, you ask him one day, you - you notice he's not making any progress. And
you decide it's his Security Checks that are giving him the progress, not
the running of the terminal and you get very bright. You have a long, blue
streak of lightning, you see. You get this marvelous idea. And you say, "It
just may be there's a gross auditing error here." Now, that is the first
idea you ought to get with regard to the pc who is not making progress.
Whether you're auditing on a via, through some other auditor or whether
you're supervising auditing very casually or whether you're doing it
yourself If you're not getting progress, you should think to yourself
there's a gross auditing error here of some kind or another and the first
and foremost one is that the pc isn't doing the auditing command. That's
the first thing you should search out. And you get this long, bright blue
spark and you say to the pc, you say, "Who do you think of when I say,
'Have you ever destroyed a skin diver?'" And the pc thinks for a long time.
There's quite a comm lag.
And says, "Well, I think of Mary Ann."
And you'd say, "Well, is Mary Ann a skin diver?"
And you get another long comm lag and the pc then says, "No, come to think
about it. Mary Ann is not a skin diver. Mary Ann has never had anything to
do with skin diving."
Now, I know that sounds completely idiotic, but then you're handling a zone
and sphere of idiocy. Everyone is very bright until he gets on the subject
of his exact goal and terminal. And then he's a complete idiot. So, there
you go.
So having asked this burning question, don't say then, snarlingly, "Well,
after this, after this, when I ask you the auditing command, apply it to a
skin diver!" You know, that would be the wrong way to go about it because
obviously the pc is incapable of doing so and you just asked him to spring
up to the top of the Empire State Building in a swan dive from the
pavement. He can't do this. So you give him a kind of a lose.
Now, you say, "Well, what cooks with this Mary Ann?"
"Oh, I don't know if I've ever told you, but she and I had a lot of
trouble."
All right. That - that would be the way to go. You're auditing somebody
with a present time problem of long duration. You're not auditing
somebody's terminal. Your rudiments are out even though they're not
registering as out. They don't register as out, because the thing is
totally submerged. The thing is completely out of sight. So therefore you
have to supplement rudiments with interrogation and what kind of
interrogation do you have to do? You have to ask the pc, "Well, what would
have to happen to you in order to find out if Scientology worked?" you
know. It comes right back to that thing.
"Oh, well, I have to get over this trouble with Mary Ann."
There it is. Present time problem of long duration. This can give you a lot
of trouble - present time problem of long duration - and could have given
you much more trouble a few weeks ago than it would now. Because now with
your Security Check aspect of the broad tool - Security Check is a very
broad tool - you have the rule of the prior confusion and that is one you
must remember because he is not fixated on Mary Ann at all. Mary Ann is the
solution to a problem of which Mary Ann had no part. And you can audit Mary
Ann till hell freezes over and you won't free the pc from Mary Ann. Why?
Mary Ann is the one piece of paper that was motionless while all other
pieces of paper moved.
It's the rule of the prior confusion. The broken leg - the broken leg is
the solution to the confusion. Believe it or not, it is. And that is hooked
and it violates the rule of auditing the stillness. Don't audit
stillnesses. Audit motion.
Well, what is there motionful about a broken leg? There it lies pointing
the wrong way. It's awfully still and it's sure been still ever since,
hasn't it? It's gone on for some years being still. Guy's got a
psychosomatic now called a broken leg. Only it's not called a broken leg.
It's called an articulo metalosis of the tibia.
Female voice: Of the what?
That's very interesting. The one you didn't get is a proper word for a leg.
Anyway, here we go. Chronic somatic, then, from - viewed from a Security
Check basis, is a solution to a prior confusion - always. It's never
considered otherwise. Now how do you get rid of one? I can tell you how to
get rid of one today as I told you the other day, but I can repeat it.
It's a very simple activity. What do you do? You find the prior confusion
by assessment. What confusion reacts the most on the meter just prior to
Mary Ann, the broken leg or anything else the pc is using in running? What
is the prior confusion?
You assess it. And you find out that just before Mary Ann turned up, God
help us, it looked like the Battle of Gettysburg at high speed. Yeah man,
it really was motionful. And whatever it was - whatever it was that
assessed out, you take that series of personnel and run Security Checks on
them and you never run any Security Check at all on Mary Ann or the broken
leg.
Now earlier, we were making very slow but positive progress by running
Security Checks on Mary Ann, or pardon, not Security Checks but running O/W
on Mary Ann, running O/W on legs and we were getting someplace. We were
getting someplace. That was no doubt about that. Very slow, but very
positive.
We could run O/Ws against a fellow's bad ear. You know, "What's he done to
an ear? What has he withheld from an ear?" and so forth, we would have
gotten someplace. But now, this new data has turned up that the ear...
Well, the new data that turned up is I had to find out for ever and aye,
whether you ever audited stillnesses and I find out you don't. And of
course, this is the stillest stillness you ever heard of. This ear's been
floating through time, it isn't even moving on the time track. It's awfully
still, isn't it?
So obviously you've got to find the confusion for which the ear is a stable
datum and our tools are now adequate and our sessioning is now adequate,
with rudiments in, to actually audit confusions. You can hold the pc
in-session, which you might not have been able to do some little time ago.
So, what do you do? You find the prior confusion and the personnel and
objects involved in the prior confusion and you security check them. You
find out what the pc did to them and how the pc tried to make them guilty
and you find out all about it. And now when you've done that Security
Check, you will find out Mary Ann has blown and the broken leg is now
moving on the track, which is quite an interesting thing.
Now, look at what this pc is doing. It's not ever as flagrant as this. A pc
who's doing this is having a hell of a time. "Let's see now. If my ear got
well, then I would know that the auditing which is being done on me is
working."
Every time he does an auditing command, he looks over to see if his ear
gets well. He does an auditing command, see if his ear gets well. Then he
thinks he'll audit something else in order to see if his ear got well. Then
he'll audit something else and he'll have something else as a target -
which he doesn't tell you anything about - and then he looks back to see if
his ear got well. Hell, he's not in-session. He's running a self-audit.
Also, he must be running some kind of a weird oddball mechanism called
"doubt." He must be doubting everything that is happening. He must be in -
a hell of a lot of doubt going on of one kind or another for this sort of
thing to be going on. He has no positiveness and he has no assurance.
Therefore, he has no confidence. Therefore, there's no boost to anything
that is happening. So therefore, it's all slow freight through Arkansas. I
mean, he's not going to have anything happen.
So you got now the rule of the prior confusion. Now, that's his present
time problem of long duration. Find the present time problem, confusion.
The confusion that went before the present time problem of the long
duration and you've got it.
Now, this even might apply to engrams. It might be that the person is stuck
in some portion of an engram as a solution to the confusion which went
before and maybe it forecasts a new way to run engrams - which is to say,
you don't run the engram, you find out where the fellow is stuck and then
you assess the prior confusion. And having assessed the prior confusion,
why you could run a Security Check type action on that and the engram would
blow. That's - that forecasts it for engrams, but I'm - I don't have any
experimental data on it. It's just theoretical.
This other is not theoretical. This other is quite factual, that it is the
prior confusion which sticks a person into a present time problem of long
duration. Now, he cannot confront that prior confusion and so he has his
attention stuck, you see, on something he can confront. And you'd be
surprised, but thetans can confront busted heads, bad legs, hopeless love
affairs.
The Japanese - oh, the Japanese ever... Show you what a thetan will do (the
Japanese are too, you know) and I would love to see you - I would - I would
just love to - to see your reactions to a real honest-to-goodness, not
faked-up for export, but a real honest-to-goodness Japanese movie - a real,
sound movie from Japan, for home consumption. I would love to see your
reaction to it, because - in the first place, I could tell you about it,
but you still wouldn't believe it. It's not something on which anybody
could have a reality. Because I myself, the first time I ever saw one, I
said this is impossible. And I sat all the way through the thing and I
hadn't seen it at all because it was all impossible. And it was mostly for
practice in understanding Japanese customs and frame of mind and also
practice, obliquely, in speaking Japanese.
But the next one I saw - I'd already seen it happen once, so there was a
probability that it could happen again - and I realized that when I had
heard and read of things like this when I was a kid around the Pacific,
that I had just not-ised them. They were just total not-is. I didn't
believe anybody ever considered this drama and yet there it was.
Well, their fairy tales are very easy to get hold of - very easy to read.
But they don't exaggerate it to the degree that the Japanese has got it
exaggerated now in the later days of his civilization.
Oh, I'll give - I'll give you a plot of a movie in Japan. I mean it runs
like this.
The soldier comes home from the wars and greets his girl and then he goes
off to the wars and is killed. You are now at about ten feet deep in the
film. You may not even have seen him. This we are suddenly collided with -
we suddenly collide with this immediately after the titles. We're - we're
acquainted with this almost immediately after we find out that it was
directed by Kobi Mitsuyu. This is totally incidental. And now, my God, we
have five reels where she does nothing but wander across scenes and areas
where she has seen him before he died and that's the movie.
And of course, the Western mind is educated to a bunch of action. And then
finally, why, she receives the news that her lover is dead and she lies
down on the bed and cries and that is the end of the film and that's very
modern and very something or other. That's - that's really something
marvelous. You know, that's a very tragic picture to us, you see. Very
dramatic. Very dramatic. Not to Japan. The whole picture now takes place.
Now it takes place, see. You have a hell of a time sorting out who this
fellow was. All this is incidental. The action is entirely missing. There
is no action.
Beautiful photography. Have these circular bridges and so forth and cherry
blossoms. And the cherry blossoms are falling, blossom by blossom, you know
and the circular bridge. And she is reflected in the water. And then she's
standing on the bank, you see and she looks into the water, and she doesn't
see her own reflection, she sees his face. And then she walks on and this
goes on for about five reels. Coo, man!
You read about these things, of course, they'll give you a Westernized
version of the plot and they'll say, "Well, her lover was an aviator and he
got killed bombing the Saratoga and so on. And this broke her heart and she
became a geisha girl." That's the plot. And you say, well, there must be...
You know, and you get the idea of rahahahahah, a-a-a-a, and all this kind
of thing. Well, it has nothing to do with the picture. We don't even find
out the guy's name, you know.
Well, that's a grief engram stuck after the fact of action and you can run
it till hell freezes over, of course and there's no action in it, you're
running the still. There's the still.
So, of course, if there isn't any action in it, what's - keeps holding it
in place? It must be the confusion which occurred before the action.
Actually it wouldn't have occurred if there hadn't been all that action.
Well, the Japanese can no longer face any kind of action. Not even in war
could they face action. They went out and did the most suicidal things.
They could face death and they could face that very well, because it was
good and still.
I know I spent about four years making myself numbers of enemies amongst
naval officers in the West by trying to tell them something about Japan and
I don't think they've even grasped it yet.
But the Japanese, of course, he's already in a still, and he obsessively
duplicates and so forth. They're not a bad people, long way to, but they -
they very easily slide into this particular band. They shudder off of the
motion. They shudder off of the confusion and theye