6108C30 SHSpec-47  Auditing Quality

     If you pass up any reading rudiment and try to go on with the session,
when the PC has his attention on something else, even if it is not-ised, you
will set up trouble in session.  You'll get ARC breaks stemming from the PTP.
It may not be a PTP stemming from the environment.  Sessions can be PTP's.
Also, asking for PTP's can restimulate one that had been dormant until looked
for.  So rudiments can be dangerous ground.  If the PC's PTP is the session,
he has already postulated that he can't have a session, otherwise he'd just
relax about it and not have the PTP.  He's got such a scarcity of auditing
that he has to get the most session he can in that unit of time.  He presses
at it; gives himself more commands; substitutes a process he can do for one he
can't In all this, the PC is just trying to make a session out of it.  This
creates a PTP for the PC.  New pcs especially have a scarcity of any treatment because they've had so much ineffective treatment.  They feel no treatment is being offered anywhere, so they get a can't have on treatment. This gets carried over into auditing; it produces a scarcity.  The PC will demand auditing and won't have it when he gets it.  This all stems from the PTP of scarcity of treatment.  Handle it with any PTP process, once you get the PC to see that he has it, using innuendo to get him to cognite that auditing is scarce.  Use something like, "What auditing sessions have you been unable to confront?" or "When has there been no auditing?" or "What unknown in an auditing session would you want to escape from?" This would cure the phenomenon.

     The PC who has continual PTP's has obviously not told you anything about
his PTP, because those things that are known are not aberrative.  So if he
says, "I know what's wrong with me:  it's my mother," you can write it off.
Those things that are half-known can still make trouble from the unknown half,
so the second the PC says, "I know all about it," that does not necessarily
mean he's recovered from it, if he found out about it in auditing.  It may not
be fully known.  Never believe a PC, except on goals and terminals.

     To the PC, auditing is handling of his fixed attention on the track.  So
you needn't quail at getting in a rudiment if that's where the PC's attention
is fixed.  You do have to find the root of it, the thing he's really stuck
on.  Auditing is what the PC considers frees up his attention.  So ask enough
questions to find out what he's doing and where his attention is.  If the
auditor sits there running the process and doesn't know what's happening with
the PC, he has a big not-know on the session.  The PC can also not-know what
the auditor is doing.  He can feel he's got a withhold because the auditor
never asks what's going on.  You can ask pertinent questions in any number.
Get very certain on what he's doing, how, what he's looking at, etc., etc..
It keeps the PC's attention on his case to keep asking about it.  It also
keeps his comm in, and it gives you a chance to guide him into doing the
command the way you want him to.

     A PC who goes anaten has suffered a drop in havingness.  His primary
havingness is havingness of an auditor.  So, if he's gone anaten, he's lost
the auditor.  You could ask, "When is the first time you lost the auditor?" If
you don't give him back an auditor, he'll continue to go anaten.  The PC with
the most anaten has the least auditor.  The things that cause him to lose the
auditor could be what the auditor does (e.g. an error), or just the PC hitting
some incidents and losing the auditor.  The PC starts going anaten, and the PC
is alone.  That's all.  Find out where he is; he's doing a retreat.  Anaten
and boil-off on the part of the PC indicate that, from the point of view of
the PC, the auditor isn't there.  If you find out where the PC's attention is,
you free it which is the goal of auditing.  If you are interested in the PC's
case, it helps hip to be interested in it.  You can just sit back and give the
command and never find out what the PC is doing, and it will work.  But
compared to what happens if you really do a Cook's tour of the bank, getting
the PC to tell you what's going on all the time, it's an inferior type of
auditing.  If you don't do it that way, the PC will hit the thing and bounce,
hit and bounce, leaving a bit stuck here and there.  The PC will eventually
come out fine.  It just takes longer.  The reason LRH hasn't insisted on
auditors doing it this way is that they can be so knuckleheaded about it.
They dc some escape mechanism by asking a dumb question.  As long as an
auditor experiences impulses, no matter how obscure, to rescue the PC from the
dangers of the bank by pulling him away from it, it's not safe to have him asking questions.  That's the bug in back of it.

     The bank is as it is because of the confusion and randomity in it.  If
you don't keep the PC confronting the randomity, he won't clear up, that's
all.  That's the source of the 5:1 ratio in length of time needed to produce
an auditing result between others and LRH.  Ron has no allergy to action, but
has no must-have on it either.  You don't audit the quiet points of the
track.  Although a scarcity of action is what is wrong with the PC, we have to
ask, "How did this scarcity of action occur?" It occurred because of the
unpalatability of action.  Stillness is preferred because it keeps you from
getting hurt.  You may find the PC complaining of the boredom of life.  If you
suggest, "Let's go join the Marines!", the PC will say.  "Well, no." Action
has become discreditable.  Society at this time has the opinion that action is
a bad idea, at least as represented in literature.  Why should this be?  If a
PC is so starved for action, you would think that the scarcity of action just
stemmed from his situation in life.  But how did he get himself in that
situation?  The faster you get him over the idea of the discreditable nature
of action, the sooner you'll get him unstuck from the quiet areas of his
track.  The blood and guts are there, a moment before and after.  It's
fascinating to find out what PC's think pictures should be, too.  They may
have weird ideas about what they should have, all backed up with the
discreditability of action.

     You can direct the PC's attention by asking him questions; as long as
your questions do not yank his attention off the subject on which it is
operating, he'll get into no trouble at all.  Finding out what he's doing,
what he's looking at, etc, is beneficial.  And whenever it seems he's just
escaped, find out about what is unknown about what he just left, [Cog: This
would also be the mechanism of blows on misunderstoods: a person cannot
confront the unknown.] or if there's anything else in that.  Keep putting his
attention back on the thing he bounced out of.  Don't do this forcefully, but
use pointed questions.  Eventually the whole thing is sorted out and he's not
stuck on it by all the effort to escape and the mystery and the unconfronted
action.  Furthermore, he knows he's getting auditing because he gets his
attention freed from the spot where it was stuck.  He winds up with action not
being discreditable and being able to have it.

