Home Search Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 4Pro Level 5 C/Sing Solo
| Tech terms | Scales | Axioms | Drills | Checksheets | Processes | Prep. lists | C/S terms | C/S tool | Grades | Cramm | Points | KTW | Online |
Some Auditing Basics
(Note: this chapter follows up on "ARC and TRs". It covers about the same area, but gives some additional angles to this important subject. Since the subject is all-important to successful auditing both chapters are included).
Communication - the 'Magic'
The magic of communication is about the only thing that makes auditing work. The individual - the spiritual unit we call the thetan - has long since begun to consider himself a physical thing. He thinks of himself as made of mass and energy and being part of MEST (matter, energy, space and time). So we find him responding to the laws of physics, the laws of Newton, electricity and electronics. He is in a state of being convinced about 'conservation of energy', and to generate energy or As-is things is at first a very strange idea to him.
The individual, as we find him in the pc's chair, considers himself massy and part of MEST and he needs a second terminal or person to discharge the energy contained in his Bank. So in the session we have two poles. And we have an exchange of energy going on. As long as the auditor audits and the pc answers the pc will experience an exchange of energy. We have two poles, just like in an electrical circuit; we have the auditor and the pc.
Many new auditors think of themselves as being a second terminal in a sense they are prone to pick up the pc's aches and pains and troubles. The truth is, there is no such physical exchange taking place. There is no such energy hitting the auditor. If he picks up the pc's ailments it is only because the auditor copies it on his own. No physical exchange really happens. There is no burning or melting of mass. But setting up this two pole system brings about the appearance. What actually happens is As-is-ing of mass.
The magic of the situation is happening because of the communication cycle. The communication cycle is what brings about the smooth interchange between two poles.
When you try to analyze the difficulties in auditing you will realize that you are handling the difficulties of the communication cycle. When you as an auditor do something that is against allowing this smooth flow between you as a terminal and pc as a terminal and the exchange between you, there will be no As-is-ing of mass or Bank and the Meter will go 'dead' - there will be no TA action.
Part of auditing is of course to find something that will respond and As-is. That is what we call the technique. You learn to know which button to press, which process to take up next. The communication cycle is however more important.
If an auditor is capable of making the pc willing to talk to him, he does not need a button to push to get Tone Arm action.
And also: If the auditor can't make the pc willing to talk to him, he won't get any TA action regardless of what button he pushes.
The auditor who frantically demands new techniques all the time is revealing that his basic tools are not working for him. The most basic tool is the auditing communication cycle. When the communication cycle does not exist in the session we get this terrible situation of trying to get a technique or process to work, but the process can't do anything by itself if there is no communication cycle it can travel by.
Basic auditing is called Basic Auditing because it has to come first. The basic auditing has to be established before any technique will be able to work. It's is as basic as, you have to switch any machine on before it will run. So the entrance point of any case is not the technique, but is basic auditing and the communication cycle.
Communication is basically a process of reach and withdraw. When you speak to the pc you are reaching. When you stop speaking you are withdrawing. When the pc listens to you, he is a bit withdrawn (paying attention) and then he reaches out with the answer. When you put the question over to the pc you will see him withdraw and think things over; then he finds the answer in his mind and he will reach out with the answer and tell you what it is. So there is this reach and withdraw and this exchange between pc and auditor and you will see the result on your Meter because an As-is-ness of energy is taking place and the TA moves.
If this basic exchange and communication doesn't take place, there will be no TA action. So the most fundamental element of auditing is the communication cycle.
This was a very fundamental discovery, and a very important one, Ron Hubbard made early on. An apparently simple and basic discovery like that had been overlooked completely in all earlier practices of the East and the West.
Two Parts of Auditing
So we have: in order to do something for somebody, there must exist a communication line between them. A communication line depends upon reality and affinity and of course communication, ARC. If an auditor is too demanding the affinity will suffer a little bit. There are two basic steps to take for auditing to happen:
1. You get into communication with the pc you want to help.
2. You do something for him.
You will often find pc's going around and raving about their auditor. The auditor hasn't done anything for the pc yet. But what has happened is, that this marvelous communication line has been established between the pc and auditor and this is such a new and miraculous experience to the pc.
Something miraculous has happened and even if the auditor does nothing more than that it's a novel and profound experience. But the only reason the auditor formed this communication line was to do something for the pc. So there are clearly two stages:
1. Form the communication line. 2. Do something for the pc. These are two distinctly different steps.
It is like (1) going over to your car and sit in the drivers seat; maybe listen to the stereo. And (2) Actually turn the key and go somewhere. If you don't turn the key and start to drive you are never going anywhere.
It is an important skill, and no small one at that, to be able to communicate to a human being who has never been communicated to before. To the new pc it seems an end all experience. But understand that it is just sliding into the driver's seat. Now you have to turn the key and go somewhere.
Any upset or difficulty a person has, any aberration is usually something that has to be kept in a delicate balance. It's almost like a house of cards. It is not difficult to get well. It is more difficult to remain in an aberrated state. The pc has to work at it.
If your communication line is very good and your TRs are really smooth and natural and if your professional discipline is perfect as to not upset this communication line the slightest, and you just went ahead and asked some simple questions like, "What are you doing, that is sensible?" and you made sure your ARC with the pc stayed real great, you would see more aberration fall apart per minute than you ever thought could exist. That's what we mean by saying, do something for the pc. For that to happen you must audit well, show perfect professional discipline and get your comm cycle in. You know how not to ARC break the pc and you make sure to actually complete your cycles of action. But all this is simply the beginning, the entrance point. The discipline of CT training makes it possible. This is one major reason why other fields of the mind never could accomplish anything and couldn't really help anybody - because they couldn't communicate with anybody. So the discipline of communication and basic auditing is very important. So that is the stairs that leads up to the front door; if you can't get up to the front door, you can't even start to try to get something done.
The perfect professional discipline consists of the perfect communication cycle, perfect auditor presence, perfect skills with the Meter. But all these things are just to get you into a position where you can actually do something for the pc. What you want to be able to do perfectly are these basic things. Keep up the communication cycle, be able to really get into communication with the pc and be able to maintain high ARC. You want to be able to get real answers to your questions and be able to get clear and good reactions on the Meter and see them every time. All these basic things have to be real good. It is not an easy task to get a real communication line to somebody. So if all this is at work and done to perfection - first then can you start to process somebody. It is easy to get it all backwards. The normal urgency of students is to get to know new techniques and storm ahead. But this only leads to failures in auditing.
A very elementary process would be "What do you think is sensible?". So let's say you ask the pc this and pc answers. Pc says, "All cows ought to sleep in beds". The auditor says with perfect ARC, "Very good. Now, why is that sensible?" The pc says, "Wait a minute. That doesn't make much sense. It's actually pretty crazy!" The pc cognited. You didn't have to do anything other than that. He cognited and the process EP'ed. It is actually easy to do.
If you keep looking for the magic process you are looking in the wrong direction. Because the magic is in getting into communication with the person. The rest is easy. The trick (as above) is to stay in communication and not get thrown off ARC. You have to realize that these huge aberrations that are ruining his life, are in such a delicate balance; it's held together by tape and safety pins. All you have to do is to look at them with perfect TRs and 'poof' the whole thing falls apart. If you hadn't been in real communication with this person he wouldn't have cognited. He would have taken it as an accusative gesture or action. He would have tried to make himself look real good, as he does in life, he would have tried to put up a facade as he does in social situations. He would be really concerned about his status. When you see pc's being very concerned about status and what they are being run on and be very concerned not to be perceived to be difficult cases, you know right away their auditors are not in good communication with them. The pc is all concerned about upholding his status and feels he has to defend himself against the auditor. This is a sure sign of that the auditor couldn't possibly be in real communication with him.
Today there is no mystery involved in doing a perfect session. You just need to apply the basics that you learn right here on this course. You sit down with the pc and you start sorting out the pc's difficulties and problems. This is simply done by completing your communication cycles, by not cutting his communication and everything else you were taught on the TRs. This way you get this 'magic' communication line established and now you can do something for the pc.
Of course, once you have established this magic line, you better do something for him. Otherwise the line will pretty soon break down as the reason why, the reality, you established this line would be missing. If this happened the communication and ARC would deteriorate and you may find the pc suddenly being defensive and wondering why he is being processed. That we could call to 'under-audit'. You can also 'over-audit'. Let's say, pc had had this marvelous cognition about 'cows not needing to sleep in beds' and for some reason you think you can push this win a little further. Nothing happens. No TA action, no new cognitions; nothing. You just have to realize you already completed the process. So you can over-audit and you can under-audit. Both will cause the communication line to deteriorate. You simply have to realize when you have accomplished what you set out to do.
There could be another situation, where apparently things didn't work out. Let us say auditor asks about A and pc answers about B and the auditor doesn't realize this. His observation and communication couldn't have been that great or he would know. He would know he wasn't really doing anything for the pc.
It takes professional auditor discipline to keep this communication line in. He has to be aware of the above factors to stay in communication with the pc. Those cycles have to be perfect. You keep the pc at it. You do not distract the pc by talking about what is going on with the Meter, or anything else irrelevant for that matter. Keep the pc going and keep the communication line in. Once this line has been established you better use it and do something for the pc and he will be real happy about the whole thing.
Comm Cycles in Auditing
We have talked about the auditor's communication in broader terms above. From the TRs and the Chapter 'Auditing and Communication' we know there are many specific parts to this communication. In this section we will specifically look at these smaller cycles and how the whole thing breaks down. A single comm cycle is: cause - distance - effect, in just one direction.
Two main cycles
There are basically two comm cycles between pc and auditor that make up the overall auditing comm cycle. You have the auditor at cause. And following that, you have pc at cause. It would look like this:
Auditor asks pc a question or gives pc an auditing command.
(1) Auditor to pc:
These are two distinctly separate comm cycles. The only thing that connects them and make them into one auditing comm cycle is, that the auditor with his comm cycle on purpose restimulates something in the pc's Bank which then is discharged by the pc communicating to the auditor. If the pc does not answer the question he will not get rid of the restimulation. This is the game being played in the session and in the auditing comm cycle. In it's simplicity that is the whole game.
If the auditor wasn't willing to cause this calculated restimulation no auditing would take place. If the pc doesn't answer, or only partly answers, it would be equally fatal to the activity. But there are other comm cycles at work:
(3) Auditor also has to observe pc. This is pc at cause. There are these small silent cycles that are vital to a smooth session. By this method auditor has to determine this question, "Has the pc finished answering?" The auditor has to perceive and observe that before he acknowledges. Otherwise he is cutting the pc's communication and leaving pc stuck with charge that was never communicated or allowed to discharge on the main comm line 'pc to auditor'.
(4) Having perceived that, an additional comm cycle takes place: Auditors acknowledgement. He says "Good", "Thank You", etc. to acknowledge the pc's answer.
(5) A similar observation to (3) (cause-distance-effect) with pc at cause is, "Did the pc receive the acknowledgement?" You have to watch this one. The ack is supposed to finish the cycle as you learned on TR-2. You need to be able to observe that this actually happens.
(6) Another such little cycle [belonging to (1)] is, "Is the pc ready to receive the auditing command?" Again this is a little silent cause-distance-effect with pc at cause and the auditor simply doing a quick observation at effect.
These small cycles (of observation) are important. You'll find out if you forget to do them, because sooner or later something is bound to go wrong. The pc has to be finished with his previous answer and have some free attention available. If he is still looking inward he is not ready yet.
(7) After you have given the command, there is another comm cycle that has to take place, "did the pc receive the auditing command?". The auditor simply looks at the pc to determine that. It's pc at cause and auditor observing him at effect. Auditor has to develop enough understanding to simply determine this with one quick look. Is the pc frowning? Is the pc leaning forward? or is the pc actually withdrawing and looking into his Bank to find an answer?
(8) There is another comm cycle inside the overall auditing comm cycle and that is between pc and himself. If the pc is into complicated things or has a complicated mind this can be a multiple cycle. But we know at least that something is going on inside pc's skull and an answer is supposed to come out of it. Maybe you gave the command, "Recall a happy day". The pc says "Yes". Sometimes you will have to find out what he actually said "Yes" to. You want to know (as you learned in TR-3) "Is the pc actually answering the auditing command, or is he saying 'yes' to something else?" You want to make sure he is actually carrying out the command.
So here we have eight comm cycles, each consisting of cause-distance-effect with intention, attention, duplication and understanding. But these are just the principal ones. There can actually be several more.
If the pc says, he didn't get it, the auditor would of course have to repeat it. That would be two more; from pc to auditor and from auditor to pc. That would add two more cycles to just one auditing comm cycle. This would be different from a repetitive auditing command where you are doing the same cycle over again after the previous was completed.
There is also a completely different cycle that can take place - although it follows the same pattern. That is when the pc originates. A pc origination has nothing to do with the auditing comm cycle. No, this is a brand new cycle, where the pc comes up with something that has nothing to do with the auditing comm cycle or anything the auditor is doing.
You have to realize it has it's own drill. The auditor has to be prepared for that something like that can happen at any point in time. He has to be ready to shift gears when pc does something unexpected. An origin isn't just a verbal statement from the pc. Pc suddenly throwing down the cans is also an origination. Maybe he did so because the auditing cycle went to pieces. Now it is here and it has to be handled first (any origin) and finished off, before the auditing and the auditing comm cycle can resume. Pc is at cause here, unexpectedly; but it is still cause-distance-effect. The auditor has to understand and acknowledge. Sometimes he can have a hard time understanding what the pc is talking about. It can go back and forth, cause-distance-effect, cause-distance-effect, back and forth a few times. You can't put a mechanical formula or a rote handling in place because the origination has to be understood. It has to be done in such a way that you aren't just asking the pc to repeat his origin over and over. You get him to clarify and you have to really understand what in heck he is talking about. So you clarify, you understand, you acknowledge and then you have to observe that the acknowledgment was received and the origin handled.
The auditor should analyze all these cycles going on and
draw it up on a piece of paper. He has to realize there are all these communication
cycles and they just add up to one auditing comm cycle.
Three Important Comm Cycles
So we can count at least eight comm cycles within the auditing cycle, but they are not all equally important. In actual auditing there are three of these comm cycles, that are clearly more important than the rest. The beginning auditor has to develop a practical understanding of this. When he first does his training and drilling he is required to get all the procedures right (after having mastered the TRs). His first impulse will then naturally be to go in session and rattle it all off to a pc. It is therefore necessary here to point out the order of importance to sort out all these small back and forth comm cycles that go on between pc and auditor.
Here are the three most important comm cycles:
1. The first and most important one is, pc's line to his Bank: The Itsa Maker line, (# 8 above).
2. Second is the pc's line to the auditor: The Itsa line, (# 2 above).
3. Third is auditor's line to the pc: The What's-it line, (# 1 above).
Since all the drilling of processes and much of the student's training naturally have to concentrate on (3), it's important that the student auditor gets a good practical understanding of this order of importance. There are very good reasons for this. You are running the session for the pc. You want TA action, As-is-ing and cognitions to take place. You want to DO something for your pc. To accomplish any of this you need a pc who is 'in-session'. The definition of 'in-session' is, again, 'Pc interested in his own case and willing to talk to the auditor'.
The pc's line to his Bank is 'Interested in own case'. That's the most important one. Notice the definition says, willing to talk to auditor. That doesn't mean he has to be talking. It is different from 'Talking to the auditor'.
A new auditor, seeing the pc 'just sitting there' and auditor all fired up with all the drilling he has done, is prone to cut in and do (3). Not a good idea! Because the auditor is cutting the pc's line to his Bank. The pc has to do (1) in order to have something to tell the auditor at (2). That is how he As-is-es things and gets TA action.
If the new auditor does it all in reverse he is likely to cut the pc's Itsa-maker-line and ARC break the pc. Result: no TA action and an ARC broken pc - no session. So he has to realize he uses his What's-it line in order to get pc to confront his Bank. Pc, while doing that, is not prone to say anything. You can sometimes get an idea of him working at it by watching the Meter. When the pc has found something he has to be given full attention while he does (2). He tells the auditor; that is the Itsa line. The auditor listens carefully and acknowledges. Now he can finally do (3) and ask the next question from his procedure or give the next command. Since (1) is an invisible line, the new auditor is prone to overlook it and try to get the pc to talk and talk, (2). It is thus important from the very first session, that the auditor is informed and aware of this invisible line and knows its importance or he will run into 'mysterious' failures.
Observing Your Pc
Above you saw an analysis of the auditing comm cycle. We isolated at least eight comm cycles within the overall auditing cycle and it could go much higher when we talk handling originations. All these back and forth cycles can seem a little confusing at first, but as the student analyzes it in drilling, and maybe from taping a couple of his live sessions, it will all soon fall into place. This is all part of training. At a very early stage the new auditor should be through looking at his own performance and taking apart all these small cycles. He just knows how to do it and do it right.
Now all his attention should be on what the pc is doing or not doing. Your handling of your own communication cycle has become instinctive and part of your very presence and beingness so you never have to worry about doing it right.
In actual auditing the communication cycle you watch is the pc's. You are in the business of the communication cycle and watching the responses of the pc. This is what makes an auditor who can handle and crack any case. If it is absent he couldn't crack an egg with a hammer. The difference lies in being able to observe the pc's comm cycle, knowing exactly what is going on and be able to step in and repair it any time a tiny breakdown is occurring. He is capable to catch any little lapse before it has a chance to develop. It is real simple.
Auditing consists simply of asking a question the pc can answer and then observe the pc answer it. When it is answered, he observes that the pc has completed his answer completely. Then he gives the acknowledgment. That completes one cycle. Then the auditor gives the pc something else to do. He can ask the same question (as in a repetitive process) or he can ask another question. Asking a question the pc can answer involves that the auditor clears the command. The auditor also has to ask the question loud and clear so the pc can actually hear it.
When the pc answers the question the auditor has to be alert enough to know if the pc is answering the question being asked and not some other question. This is important in all it's simplicity; as you restimulate something in pc's Bank with the question you got to make sure the pc gets rid of that restimulation by an actual answer. Some processes can be answered with "Yes", like "Recall a happy moment", or whatever. The pc answers, "Yes". In such a case you would ask, "What was it?". You have to remain in control, keep the pc in-session and complete auditing cycles. Just accepting "Yes" without knowing what the pc is answering would violate that.
You will develop a sensitivity for knowing when the pc has finished his answer. It's a knowingness you have to get. He was reaching out with the answer and now he relaxes and withdraws a bit. You should be able to tell from a number of things. His tone of voice and the fluctuations he uses. You can look at his throat and maybe see the vocal chords area relax. Most pc's have small mannerisms or signals they use. It would be misleading to give you one thing to watch because pc's are different. But you watch for these small signals and you develop a familiarity with your pc.
When you know he has finished you tell him with an acknowledgment. You say "Good", "OK" or anything appropriate to his communication. It is like pointing out the by-passed charge. Your question was designed to restimulate something specific in the pc's Bank; he answered. The ack points out the by-passed charge. That is the magic of communication. You may even see a BD on the Meter. If the auditor hasn't yet developed this sensitivity for when the pc has finished his answer, he may just sit there and look at the pc. The pc will suddenly start to use his social machinery to keep the conversation going and the auditor will get no TA action.
You can make your acknowledgement too much of a 'full
stop'. If you over-acknowledge the session may end right there and then. So this
sensitivity for the pc's comm and the effects your commands and ack's have upon
him is all part of getting your comm cycle real smooth. It all comes down to you
observing the pc. You get your own communication cycle drilled and
straightened out in training so you don't have to ever again worry about that.
Then when it comes to actual auditing you observe the pc and know exactly
what is going on.
When Auditor didn't Understand
If the pc says something and the auditor couldn't understand it, it of course has to be cleared up. This has to be done right or it could cause an ARC break.
"I did not hear you",
"I did not understand what was said", or
"I did not get that last"
is what you should use; say "I" not "you" as you are responsible for the session. If auditor says, "You didn't speak loud enough" it's an invalidation. The pc shouldn't be made responsible. The auditor is responsible for the session and the smooth communication.
Don't Repeat Answers
Repeating pc's statement as an 'acknowledgement' is actually an Auditors Code break. Usually it comes over as an evaluation. The pc may wonder if you are a circuit. If you get it wrong he may protest it completely. He feels, he has to correct your understanding now and goes completely out of session.
You don't use gestures either as in, "Do you mean this item or that?" (pointing). That can have an almost hypnotic effect on some pc's. The correct action is to have the pc say it again or point it out again. Also, to shove things at the pc or throw things at him is not OK. You don't gesture towards the pc either. It may in some cases make the pc feel his space is being invaded and cause him to reject the auditor.
A very high percentage of ARC breaks in session happens
because auditor's failure to understand. Just handle it smoothly and cutting out
any and all bad practices and habits cuts that down to a minimum.
Have you ever experienced people, that go on an on long after you have understood what they talk about? Or have you experienced people that get upset with you, when they are trying to explain something to you? If this is the case you may suffer from 'Premature acknowledgment'. It may sound like a medical condition and in terms of communication and auditing it actually is.
The cure is however not some new pill, soap or tooth paste, although it can affect the communication cycle the same way as bad odor or bad breath can affect social relationships. The cure is the use of the proper comm formula as taught on the TRs 0 -4.
Premature acknowledgment goes like this: The pc has started to explain and before he is finished you acknowledge. Now he feels you haven't heard or understood a word of what he said, and he starts to explain at great length. Or you have the pc beginning his answer and you think you need to coax him at this point, when he is already doing the right thing. Again he feels poorly understood and will go on at great length. That's why some auditors seem to always have pc's that goes on and on doing 'itsa' and never seem to get anywhere and feel funny at the end of the session.
Premature acknowledgments can lead to ARC breaks and upset pc's. It can lead to Missed Withhold situations, as the pc is left with answers he wasn't permitted to give or complete. The Missed Withhold reaction can be a violent, bickering pc, that feels all critical and upset about the situation.
There are variations of that. You may have a person that
is hesitant in giving his answer, and there is such a thing as a half
acknowledgment (also drilled as TR 2 1/2). This is an encouragement. So it is
when you think you are encouraging the pc to finish his answer and he suddenly
gets upset or frantic about it, that you know it didn't come over as an
encouraging half acknowledgement. The half acknowledgment is meant to express
something like: I follow what you say and I am interested in hearing the rest. But if you do this clumsily and the pc gets all upset and
frantic and goes on and on, you know, that your TRs are at fault and that you
are prematurely acknowledging instead of half acknowledging. It can prolong the
session endlessly and lead to poor gains for the pc or the pc getting upset,
critical of the auditor and the pc not wanting to return for the next session. (Pc being critical and not wanting to return for the next
session are indicators of Missed Withholds - the pc wondering whether you found
out or not about something; so it is a serious matter).
So part of your training as an auditor is to have a practical understanding of this and develop a sensitivity of what is going on and what you are possibly doing wrong and need to correct.
A related phenomenon is, where you don't give any acknowledgment at all, but just sit there frozen and let the pc go on and on. Here again you will see the pc getting more and more frantic and itsa endlessly or 'free associate' or something, because he thinks, that is what he is supposed to do.
This is not beneficial either. You want the Itsa-maker line to take place. That was where the pc found answers in his Bank. You want the pc to get the itsa line going from the pc to the auditor. That's where he tells the auditor 'it is a...' about what he found in his Bank. You see there is a time relationship between how long he looks into his Bank and how long it takes to tell the auditor what was going on. Thought may be much faster than words, so a brief clear look at something may take a while to itsa to the auditor. But there still is a time relationship there.
The auditor has to develop this sensitivity of what is going on with his preclear. He has to know when he is looking in his Bank and let him do that, as that is the all important itsa-maker line at work. He then has to allow his pc to tell him about it without interruptions, but with gentle half acknowledgments if needed. He has to develop a sensitivity for when the pc is done and be ready with an appropriate acknowledgment as to end the communication cycle for the pc. A good and correct acknowledgment will often cause a Blowdown on the Meter. That indicates that some mass disappeared. The cycle was ended for the pc and he feels good about it. The correct acknowledgment means, he can discard that piece of the Reactive Mind as fully inspected and now part of his analytical experience.
So knowing these things and perfecting them for practical use make a heck of a lot of a difference in how the pc feels about the whole thing and how effective the auditor is.
TRs and Itsa
Sometimes it can be a painful experience to hear what some poorly trained auditors say is 'Itsa'.
What do we mean by 'Itsa'?
It is what travels on the comm line from pc to auditor. It isn't the comm line itself. It is when the pc with certainty can say, "It is a..." He identifies things correctly, times, places, persons, etc. Pc saying "It is..." produces TA action, case gains and cognitions.
You see some poorly trained auditors take this to mean that they should just keep their pc talking and talking until he is run out and then just get him going somehow and let him talk and talk some more. Such auditors don't know the proper definition of 'Itsa'. The pc has to spot what 'It' is to benefit. The pc has been talking all his life. This hasn't made him well. Psycho-analysts had people talk for five years and seldom made anybody well. Do you think it is going to happen today, just letting him talk and talk and suddenly he will be well? --- It won't!
The auditor has to know his basic auditing skills. He has to use his TRs. An auditor who can't use his TRs in session can't audit. It is as simple as that. He may say he is "letting the pc itsa" as above, but letting the pc run amok all over the place isn't auditing. In auditing the auditor gives the pc questions to answer; when the pc answers and says, "It is a..." you have Itsa.
If you have the pc answering and the auditor acknowledges too soon (premature acknowledgment), the pc may become uneasy about the whole thing and just go on and on. If the auditor doesn't acknowledge, the pc will also go on and on, hoping for an acknowledgment that doesn't come. He may run dry and then try some more, etc.
Premature, late, or absence of acknowledgement result in the same thing: a pc that goes on and on and no TA action. These are all faults in TR-2. If the pc talks too much in session he is either being cut off or he doesn't have an auditor at all. It is just lousy TRs. The auditor has to realize:
1. The auditor asks the questions.
2. The pc answers with, "It's a..."
3. The auditor acknowledges, when the pc has said it and has finishe his answer, saying "It's a..."
That is itsa.
It is as simple as that:
1. The auditor wants to know...
2. The pc says it is...
Clearing Technology is a precision subject. It has axioms and laws, etc. All the data you learn on this course can be demonstrated to be proven facts.
You may have students coming from other practices, that think they know exactly what to do. They will have to have their false ideas cleaned up and learn the right way to do things from the ground up. A good auditor does not let his pc over-talk or under-talk. When the auditing question has been answered he acknowledges. He lets the pc originate and handle that per TR-4. If you have an auditor letting his pc's yap and yap while he is just sitting there like a Japanese suicide pilot frozen to the controls, he needs his basics looked over carefully and reworked (see TRs remedies).
Comm Cycle Additives
Even though you have to maintain communication and ARC with the pc in session you have to follow the training routines or TRs closely. There are no additives permitted to the comm cycle. All that you do and can use, you have drilled in the TRs. The auditor has to be very well disciplined and at the same time appear at ease and relaxed and natural to his preclear.
Here are some examples of comm cycle additives. They are of course bad:
Getting the pc to state the problem after he just said
what it was.
Asking the pc if that was his answer.
Telling the pc that a statement 'didn't react on the Meter'.
Also querying the pc's answer and leave him to wonder if he (the pc) is doing something wrong or not saying the right thing.
These are all examples of bad auditing practices as far as the comm cycle is concerned.
What you use in session is all contained in the TR drills; TR-0 (confronting), TR-1 (delivering a command) TR-2 (acknowledgment), TR 2 1/2 (half acknowledgment), TR-3 (giving a repetitive command) and TR-4 (handling the pc's originations).
That is all you use in session. To do anything else in session can make auditing results go down the tube.
Ron Hubbard made an observation early on. He expressed it
in this maxim: "All auditors talk too much".
The auditor is first and foremost a listener. He only says enough to get the pc going.
Some auditors, that are poorly trained on TRs will bring small social communication tricks with them in session. Like one auditor would lift her eyebrow every time she acknowledged. Another one would state his acknowledgment in a questioning tone of voice. All these additives are gross auditing errors and should be caught and disposed with in training, while you do the TRs.
Acknowledge the Pc's Rightness
The auditor tends to look for something that is wrong with his pc. He is usually trying to find something that is wrong and then help the pc correct it with a process. We assume that is why the pc is there. We assume he could be made capable of doing considerably better or doing a great deal more than he can right now.
An individual's basic nature is good; he is capable of considerable ability and power. If he is Clear or capable of operating independently of his body, he would be much more powerful and closer to his true potential. Life and living has made him into a more complex individual. It has also caused him to loose power and abilities. The idea behind this is, something was added to a powerful being and it caused him to loose some power. If you give somebody something he doesn't want, his power of choice is being overthrown. His power of choice was the 'secret' behind his powerful state. He was in his original native state capable of anything and had his power of choice about it intact. This being overthrown continuously and repeatedly finally got him overwhelmed and he ended up in a much less powerful condition.
What actually happened was, that he solved something that didn't need solving. He couldn't confront it, so he decided to solve it instead and ended up with the fixed solution to the situation. He became aberrated by having all these additives he had to drag along. That is also expressed in this maxim:
When you add something to the Being he gets worse.
With auditing we are in the business of deleting
these wrong additives, or wrongnesses, from the individual. And being in this
business tend to make us have a one-sided view about pc's.
Look at the Rightness Too
There is however another approach that shouldn't be forgotten. We have to look at the amount of rightness and truth being present. This can be nourished and promoted into more rightness and truth. You should realize, that there have to be truth present and this truth should be recognized. This is an important part of making progress in auditing; To recognize the fact that truth is present. You should not only look for wrongness in order to correct it; you should also look for rightness in order to increase it.
You could say, Auditing is a contest of maintaining the rightnesses present so that we can delete wrongnesses. If you keep both sides up, and delete wrongnesses, while maintaining and increasing the rightnesses you will eventually end up with a very right being. We are trying to get a right being, therefore if you don't continually encourage right beingness you would never end up with having a right being.
The Auditors Code # 14 says: "Always grant Beingness to the pc in session". That is what we are talking about here. Nourish the rightness and the good indicators of the pc and make him stronger and more capable of eradicate the wrongnesses.
A pc with a lot of good indicators in session is capable
of As-is-ing things easily. A pc with a lot of bad indicators is not capable of
The Meter and TRs
The auditor should not tell the pc anything about the Meter, what reads, etc. The only thing he indicates are F/N's. The Auditors Code #17 says: Never enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case. That applies here. The definition of 'in-session' is 'pc interested in his own case and willing to talk to the auditor'. If auditor says, "that reads" or, "that didn't read" auditor is putting pc's attention on the Meter and is distracting him from putting it on his case.
There is something called Meter steering, where the auditor follows up on a read by saying, "That...that...that" each time the read repeats. Here he is not putting pc's attention on the Meter, but on a specific thing in pc's Bank, so this is a valid practice and does not violate the above.
(Above based on content of 'Basic Auditing Series 1-11, by Ron Hubbard.)
Home Search Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 4Pro Level 5 C/Sing Solo
| Tech terms | Scales | Axioms | Drills | Checksheets | Processes | Prep. lists | C/S terms | C/S tool | Grades | Cramm | Points | KTW | Online |