6402C04 SHSpec-4 Auditor Self-criticism

     Enough of this goofing off as auditors and students.  The subject of
self-criticism of auditing is very misunderstood, because it is too simple.
LRH has been researching R6 [See p. 568, above.] during January, on the theory
that it is better for him to get the body knocked off than for the rest of you
to get it.  R6 is incredibly complex, but totally necessary.  You need very
smooth basic auditing in order to make R6 work.

     Self-criticism simply means taping your session, listening to it, and
spotting what needs improvement.  One gets amazing responses to the question,
"What happened in the session?" Self-criticism of auditing is vital from Level
III on up.  The deeper you go into a case -- the more "reach" the processes
have -- the more nearly perfect your basic auditing must be.  Flubs impinge to
the same degree that the auditing does.  At Levels 0 and I, the auditor isn't
impinging very much.  Hence his flubs don't impinge much either.  At Level II,
with repetitive processing, there is more impingement and less tolerance of
flubs.  At Level III, you are using the meter to reach deeper than the PC's
unaided itsa.  Here, we have moved into an area where we can get hold of
things that the PC wasn't ready to give.  There is more impingement, so the
auditing must be better, since the flubs impinge more, too.  The greater the
charge you are dealing with, the greater the bypassed charge can be.  The
meter "mines" sub-itsa.  It increases the impingement of processing.  There is
one thing that always happens when you run somebody above his level and get
him into areas that he finds hard to confront:  You will get more BPC and ARC
breaky sessions.  The level of impingement of an error is greater than a PC
can tolerate, when the PC is audited above his level.  So up to Level IV, the
best handling of an ARC breaky PC is to reduce his level.  This certainly
doesn't apply at Levels V and VI, where the BPC comes from a wrong goal, a
wrong item, or whatever.  At these upper levels, reducing the PC's level will
just leave the wrongness, and the PC will go into a sad effect.  If you give a
person a wrong goal, he will dramatize it more than the right goal.  This
happens consistently in psychoanalysis.  "The only thing you get off a
psychoanalyzed PC is psychoanalytic computations ... a bunch of bunk ...
invented items." A wrong goal doesn't as-is; it beefs up.  Find the person's
right goal, and he will dramatize is less, which makes a somewhat goofy test
for rightness of a goal.  A person tends to dramatize a validated error more
than a genuine aberration.  Someone who has had errors validated also tends to
be very careful all the time.  This comes from some old advice he got.  You
can find the error by finding out what the person is being careful of.  If you
scan someone through his psychoanalysis, you will turn on all his old
symptoms.  If you keep it up, they will turn off by erasure.  Analysis cured
its patients by inventing new evils: the id, etc.  It is an alter-is, a
negative itsa.  The analysand examines things that never existed.

     An auditor can wrongly date a somatic.  Then a later auditor can date
that somatic getting the same wrong date, and he can in fact get some
improvement of the somatic, by getting off some of the charge of the somatic's
being wrongly dated.  But he may be deceived into thinking that he has the
right date.  A person dramatizes a validated error more than an actual
aberration that has been contacted.  If you find that the PC is selling
something to you, do a case analysis:

          1.  Find out where he got the idea; where he is sitting.

          2.  Get his considerations off.

          3.  Find out where it really is, or whether it is really true.

     The reason why one attacks process errors in upper level processes
instead of since mid-ruds is that everything that happened between sessions is
sitting on top of the R6 error, and it is much quicker to find and correct the
error than to do the mid-ruds. [See Fig. 25]

FIGURE 25: R6 PROCESS ERRORS AND SINCE MID-RUDS

                              [GRAPHICS INSERTED]

     At Level IV, you are dealing with service facs, assessments, etc.  The PC
has to be able to spot and as-is his own wrongnesses and overts by that time.
By Level V, auditor errors impinge, and any piece of BPC left lying around
will get restimulated.  At Level VI, the amount of charge you are handling, RI
by RI, is huge and ferocious.  Now that the precisely correct commands have
been formulated, you have gotten away from some ARC breaks.  But if the
auditor fails to clear the command, it can act as giving the PC a wrong goal
or item.  Or if the auditor fails to understand what the PC said, you can get
immense ARC breaks.  For instance, the PC said the second RI from the bottom.
The auditor thought it was the seventh RI that the PC was talking about.  He
asks about the seventh RI to repair it.  The PC has a huge ARC break.

     New demands are placed on one's basic auditing, as one moves up to higher
levels.  So, as he moves up the levels, this can make the auditor feel as
though he is auditing terribly.  The division into levels is primarily based
on what is demanded of the PC and secondarily on what is demanded of the
auditor.  But the two are almost parallel.  It is not possible to self-audit
R6.  R6 requires the impingement of an auditor calling the items to get the
charge off.  There is a point where a person becomes total cause over his own
mind.  Up to that point, an auditor is necessary.  If you have an ARC breaky
session, you can straighten it out by running O/W on the auditor to yourself.
You are in perfect order to use assist-type processes on your own mind.  But
solo auditing doesn't produce TA action, because of the two-terminal nature of
the universe.  In this universe, one terminal all by itself is inert.  A
thetan has become so enmeshed in this universe that he has taken the physical
universe laws to apply to himself.

     There are two things that chain a thetan down:

     1.  Mass, including space, energy, and time.

     2.  Significance.

Since 1950, we have known that someone could either dramatize nuttiness
physically or in thought.  The mass gives you somatics, and the significance
makes you think that you are nuts.  A GPM contains both thought and mass.
When you get the right mass and significance aligned with other masses and
significances, it vanishes, amazingly enough, as the thetan stops creating
it.  It doesn't dissipate into energy, although you do get heat.  It vanishes
as a no-create, without fireworks.

     If you keep changing only thought and not mass, you cannot make a change
in someone's condition.  You can't handle the mass which is causing, e.g., an
illness.  The levels are approaching the GPM by cleaning up charge on all the
locks and ramifications that are hung up on GPM's.  The levels are a
familiarization with what could blow your head off.  At the very least, the
levels familiarize the PC with heavy somatics.

     The auditing cycle is the basic discovery of dianetics and scientology.
All the way from Level 0 to Level VI you are using the same auditing cycle.
This is a two-pole universe, and without an auditor, or if you don't use the
auditing cycle properly, you don't get TA action adequate to a case
resolution.  In comm courses, the comm cycle does things to people, all by
itself.  It is so powerful that by itself, it produces results.  The auditor
should recognize it as his main tool.  It has to be as polished as you have
charge that can be bypassed on the case.  It has to be better and better as
the auditor audits higher and higher levels.  "The auditor's auditing must be
adequate to the level he is running.  His handling of the auditing cycle is
the only thing which is [creating] tone arm action." Only somewhere in Level
VII does the auditing cycle cease to be necessary.

     If you haven't got an auditor, you don't have TA action.  If you haven't
got enough charge off your case, you won't be able to do anything with it.  If
an auditor is aware that his handling of the auditing cycle is the only thing
that gets charge off the PC's case -- because the auditing comm cycle is what
makes him an auditor -- then he also knows that his auditing comm cycle must
be adequate for the level he is auditing.  Auditor self-criticism allows him
to see whether it is adequate.  You have a tendency to over-complicate the
auditing comm cycle for the level you are running.  TR-2 is the most
important, if not the only important, TR for a raw PC, since if you can let someone know that you have heard him, that you have really received his comm, you could get a big result.  The other TR's have to come in as the PC progresses up the levels.

     Here is the auditor self-criticism procedure:

     1.  Do a normal session.

     2.  Record it.  You should have 1 1/2 hours of tape, with the voices well
         discernable.  This is because the auditor's error is always earlier
         than a rough spot in the session, so you want to be able to listen to
         a good stretch of time.

     3.  As the session goes forward, the auditor notes BI's in session very
         carefully: meter misbehavior, any criticism by the PC, dirty needles,
         any worry, etc.

     4.  After the session, the auditor notices, in the session record, when
         in the session the BI's, DN, etc. appeared.

     5.  Listen to that area.

     6.  Go backwards, bit by bit, a few inches at a time, to find the
         breakdown of basic auditing that caused the BI or DN.  This should be
         a few minutes or seconds earlier.

     7.  Find what the auditor failed to communicate or carry out.

     8.  Do that with every rough spot, every noted BI.

If you follow this procedure, you will find the errors and see that you didn't
get away with the breakdowns in your auditing cycle, although at the time you
may have thought that you did.  You will find that if the PC snaps or snarls,
there is a rough auditing comm cycle just before that.

     "A PC never has a reaction in the session, independent of the auditor."
Anything that happens in a session, good or bad, happens with the auditor as
cause.  The auditor is the source of the session, 100%.  LRH found that, as he
moved up in levels of auditing, his auditing had to improve.  So other
auditors can improve too.  Knowing what is wrong, one can put it right, both
with one's auditing cycle and with the PC at the time, before the ARC break
hits:  "You're as good an auditor as you can handle the communication cycle,"
and you are as skilled an auditor as you can choose the right process to put
onto the auditing comm cycle.

