Prerequisites to Auditing (CC 580705)
Series: Clearing Congress
Date: 5 July 1958
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
What did they do – where are you at with the Upper Indocs? Let me ask this question today. Has anybody arrived yet at the Congress? (laughing). Very good! Very good! Well, today's lectures are dry, uninteresting, extremely old, hardly anything in them that you want to know, so pay attention (laughs).
Today … we've, by the way, heard from some more countries. You know, this is a country we've very often slighted a little bit you know because it's so close next door, but that's Canada, and we've heard from our old friend Johan Templehoff up in Toronto. "I know this will be the best Congress until the next one. Good listening.” (applause)
You know, Scientology is… occupies the most space on this earth than practically anything. We certainly are occupying more space than several other things. We are in countries that haven't even heard of Christianity. That's pretty good. And we're also, we're also to be found, I heard recently, inside the Iron Curtain. Some fellow was telling me that this situation … and I wanted to know which side was inside. And this threw him (laughs).
Well, I promised you here in these early lectures that we were going to review this subject called Scientology, take a look at it and find out what are the essential parts that we had to have in order to clear people, and I'm going to sail into it right now and talk about just that. It's a very good thing to summate importances. One of the first things you must know in the development of anything is that importance. The evaluation of a datum in comparison with other data is more important than an ocean of data. I hear every once in a while somebody saying that some student, and he studied it, and he just got all swamped with data, and so on. Well, I'll tell you what's wrong with that student. He couldn't evaluate importances. “Be on time at nine o'clock at the academy.” Very important datum. “Always run a process so long as it produces change and no longer”, obviously of equal importance, aren't they. Actually the first one is slightly more important because Nibs said it (laughs).
The whole trick of developing an adequate and workable and practical science of life was connected with this evaluation of importances. I might let you in on a little secret. One of the things, one of the operating principles … many of the operating principles by the way are in Dianetics, Evolution of a Science, and we've never seen them since but they are still standing there as operating principles behind the organization of this particular subject. But I took such blocks of knowledge, such wide blocks of knowledge as religion, let us say yoga, and examined it to find out whether or not it had ever done anybody any good, and determined whether or not it had or hadn't, as I viewed it, and then set the whole block of knowledge aside and no further examination was given to it. In this way, I could weed out all the pieces of knowledge that hadn't gotten man anywhere and then this left a very few, this left a very few. It left such things as mathematics and the physical sciences as apparently something that had done something for him but not too much. So this established a proper pattern of thinkingness in order to go about the development of the science. Now I assure you that if yoga had worked everything out very beautifully and if we had a very nice result, we would have used a mystic pattern of thinkingness, but it hadn't apparently worked.
Now, that is what is meant by evaluation of importance. What were the important bodies of data into which one could look. I found out before I'd been on the road very long that even mathematics and the natural sciences weren't legitimate areas of examination. I found out there were some much more legitimate areas – life (laugh). It never occurred to anybody to look there before. Everybody had been studying this subject of livingness, you see, on a great many vias and it never occurred to them to look at the guy. And it never occurred to them that a mind was visible, and it is. It might not be to the practitioner, but it's certainly visible to the person. He can see it, hear it, and smell it, and I've had people tell me, “Well I don't go into things that you can't see, feel, hear, experience, so I don't pay any attention to the mind.” I’ve had some physical scientists say this to me and of course it's a rather deadly thing to say to an auditor, you know (laughs). You get into chanting “It's a boy” for a little while and he sees, feels, and experiences mind. Some of you people who were around with Dianetics and that of course throws them at once into birth, and birth engrams bite. I've seen people run it their noses and ears and sweat and strain and have head somatics and all the contractions of delivery and so forth, and this fellow says, “I can't be being born, I'm 40 years old” (chuckle). A thetan certainly can mock up well.
Now if, if evaluation of importance is important, then what do we mean by one something more important than another thing, and let's just put it this way: something more real to you than another thing – and we get the basic study principle of Scientology: that which is real to you is real, and Scientology is that which is real to you. And if a part of Scientology isn't real to you, set it on the back burner. It'll boil over sooner or later (laughs). I had to explain one time to a fellow of rather limited education, what Para-Scientology was. This was a coined word we used to use that back in the days when we were ashamed of past lives, and I asked him some questions about what in Scientology was real to him. It was Para-Scientology. Well, what in Scientology was real to him? Well, not very much. So I said, then the subject of Scientology, in the main, to you is Para-Scientology.
Here is the way we go about it. We have a fellow walking down the street, he knows nothing of Scientology. He's never even heard the word, therefore it's totally Para-Scientology, it's totally unreal to him – it doesn't exist. There is no existence. Now he hears of Scientology and hears that it did something good for a friend of his and he has a little hope that it might help him or somebody else that he knows. This little tiny bit of hope and the word which he is trying to pronounce correctly. That much is Scientology and all the remainder is Para-Scientology. And then one day he comes along and hears about such a thing as an overt act–motivator sequence.
Oh what a formidable … the difference between formidable words in Scientology and the formidable words in earlier bungled studies about the mind, the difference is that the words in Scientology aren’t there to confuse you. They are not there to obscure things, and they have a meaning. Now some of you may suspect that they're just there to booby-trap (chuckle) the subject for you. But the truth of the matter is, is they are rather carefully selected. There's been a whole system of nomenclature in which we have simply tried to pick the simplest word we could get hold of that would describe the thing and then describe it very precisely. There's a Scientology vocabulary, I think, of about 476 words which covers all of the words used in particular connotation in Dianetics and Scientology. And that's not really a very large vocabulary in that it, that whole vocabulary describes life, the spirit, the physical universe, in like 476 words so almost anybody can learn this.
Alright, this fellow goes along and runs into, one day, the overt act–motivator sequence. You do something to somebody and you think it happened to you. He remembers vividly kicking his governess in the shins, you know, and getting his silly head knocked off and he says, “You know, there's truth in that, there’s truth: that overt act–motivator sequence.” Now he has some … he knows the word, he has some hope and although he's read a lot of Scientology, nothing had any reality to him except when you do something to somebody else, something happens to you, and he hasn't even got this right, you understand (laughter). But that's real, see it's real to him. Therefore Scientology to this person, now consists of these parts – the word, the hope that it can do something, and his version of the overt act–motivator sequence, and that's the total of the subject. He's read eighteen books, but that's the total of the subject. That is now Scientology to him, you see.
Now we move up the line a little bit further and one day he's reading a book and it says something about auditing and he hasn't read the Auditor's Code, he doesn't know very much about it, but he hears of something like Straightwire, something like this. And he runs into this fellow who can't remember a thing so he uses this process and he says, “Well … the fellow's trying to remember what he said to somebody”, so this fellow remembers this little process, so he says, “Can you recall a time when you communicated with someone?” “Can you recall a time when you communicated with someone?”, and so help me this fellow’s memory opens up and he becomes very cheerful, very happy.
Now he did some auditing before. His wife had an operation, and was unconscious, he tried to do some auditing and nothing happened. The doctor standing right there kept saying, you know, the doctor was right because the doctor standing right there kept saying, well, nothing's going to happen if you do that (chuckle). And here this fellow, did though, run on his friend, a little bit of Straightwire and his friend's memory opened up and all of a sudden he remembered some incidents that he'd totally forgotten, and suddenly remembered he was married and… (laughs). After that, why his friend went around looking at this fellow that tried it, he'd say, “You know”. he said, “that's a smart man, I don't know what he can do but you know he's a smart man, he does psychotherapy or something of the sort.” The guy modestly walks around (demos thumb in lapel, laughing). Now he has these parts real, Scientology, and the hope is something he's giving other people now. That's so real to him, he gets it up, as I showed you yesterday on the scales of dynamics, he got it up to the third dynamic, you know, and so, that's so real he takes that for granted.
Now that's part of livingness and he's got the overt act–motivator sequence, wrong version (laugh), that's real, and the fact that there is such a thing as auditing and that you can produce results with it, and he can do it. Of course there's only one process (laugh), and that's “Recall a time when you communicated with someone”. Here's an interesting state of affairs.
I'll let you in on something. There are actually students who have come and gone. Some of them don't have that much reality on Scientology because their idea of study is quite different. Their idea of study is not an assimilation of the subject, but a regurgitation of it. They believe that study has one purpose only and that is to record on some superficial area. They all, when they're this way, they all are sure they have a part of the skull they write on in shorthand or something, that erases very easily and they take this and they read it in a book and they write it down on the inside of the skull, and then somebody is supposed to come along and say to them, “What did you study yesterday?”, suspiciously you know, and they're supposed to get off the hot seat simply by copying down what they wrote on this part of the skull on a piece of paper and handing it to them. And that's an examination and they pass the subject – they got A, and now they're through with it, aren't they?
Now, we're embarking on a new system of study when we embark up on a study of Scientology. It's a new thing, it's a brand new thing. Nobody demands of you, in spite of what your instructors do sometimes when you go to school on it, nobody is really demanding of you that you swallow the whole thing and then spit it out and have done with it. That is not the system. It's the instructor's plea, more or less goes this way. “Please for God's sake understand it because you're not going to be able to do anything unless you grab hold of it.” The instructor is trying to say, “Get some reality on it, son” – or miss – “Get some reality on it.”
Now the best instruction would simply be on a basis of study all of it you please but pick out that on which you have some reality. Then get further reality on what you have picked out that was quite real and then study it again, and what do you know, another little iron door would have opened up and you've got some reality on something else, because the study of this subject is not the study of a subject, it's the study of life. The subject came from life, it applies to you. It isn't invented or created in any way, shape, or form. If it hadn't been for an agreement on what to have wrong with you, called the Axioms, if it hadn't been for this, you wouldn't be here.
And I had somebody say to me sometime, you know, he looks at me through glasses that thick (demonstrating an inch with fingers), and back of that he's looking at me through a field that thick (demonstrating about three feet) and so forth, and he talks to me about your ideas on the mind and I say “Well”, I said, “you know my ideas on the mind are entirely different than Scientology” and, “Yeah”, he says, “Mine are too.” (laughing). Wonderful!
No, all we have traced here is that system of agreements which has brought about a condition of… we call life. A condition of livingness, and unless we address these specific agreements, we get nowhere. Unless you know Scientology before you study Scientology, you couldn't study Scientology. You get the idea? You have to know it first and this is the only subject I know of that we can guarantee that you did it first. We don't find people without engrams unless we clear them. We don't find people who have to wear an anchor on each ankle to be able to walk down the street because they haven't agreed to gravity. We just don't find people around who are disobeying all these things because if they were, they wouldn't be here. It's a process of elimination.
Now, somebody else in some other universe may have agreed to a number of other postulates, but the funny part of it is, they undoubtedly agreed to these postulates on the same pattern that they agreed to the postulates in this universe, and we could undo theirs too. Now, the point we're making here then is, it is a study of something. It is a study of life and the universe, and it is a study along certain patterns. But an individual can find life and all other things so terribly unreal that when they study some part of life they go and enrol in a psychology class.
That's about the most horrible thing that could happen to anyone, you know. Now there are people undoubtedly that hear about this and they'll think I'm being much, much too severe on past psychotherapy and it is professional jealousy, or something of the sort. I'm not. Probably the only reason I mention it is to sort of shake people a little bit loose from it, make them question it just a little bit, please. Because subjects which don't do anything for anybody except confuse them are always held in suspicion by me. I mean it's a peculiarity on my part. I know other people cherish subjects that do that. I'm peculiar. I like to see a subject effective and workable and usable. And that in essence, is what we have.
But how do we communicate this subject to a person who already knows it, to whom life is totally obscured. Now there's quite a trick, and the trick I was just showing you about, make them pick up that which is real to them and then something else that's real to them in the subject, and then something else that's real to them. The possibility exists that they went over the whole subject on all its literature and all its tapes, and I assure you there's millions and millions of words on that subject. Picking out each time that thing which seemed absolutely true and real and which they could agree with, and so on, they would probably wind up at the end of a couple of centuries, Clear. Therefore, the knowledge that is being picked up isn't a second hand knowledge. When we say reality, or that which you agree with, we say when you find in Scientology something that you already find in yourself, you’ve got it. You see, it's there, therefore it's real, because you can own it and take responsibility for it, because you sense it's true.
You could never educate anybody in Scientology by making them sit down and grind through all the material and say, “Well I don't care what your opinions are, the truth of the matter is that Axiom 41 is Axiom 41 and if you don't get it, you're going to flunk and that of course means social ostracism, the father and mother won't like you any more”, the usual thing they do in public schools. The first thing you have to have to train somebody in Scientology is somebody who wants to know something about life. That immediately skims off of the human race, the upper few ten thousands. They want to know something about life, they really want to know.
Some people tell me some time, well people in Scientology, you know … (garbled)… Of course, they get very short shrift from me because I know in actuality, having shopped around and looked under the stones, and back of the pillars, and a few things like that. I've looked around and I found people that did not want to know anything about life, didn't want to go anywhere, were in a total apathy of utterly sunk, and there is a limited number of people on earth who will suddenly up and volunteer to look over and study something. It's a limited number, They are the upper intelligentsia. I'm not telling you that for your ego’s sake, our profiles prove it. People, when they come in, they're the smarter people. One of these days, why, these people picking up other people, you see, will make another strata and when they can look, will want to know too – when they can look.
Some day you will be processing cases, scraping the bottom of the barrel, so to speak, he didn't want to know, he didn't want to be there. All he wanted was to do was to keep on shooting people like he always did, you know, and he wanted to lead a normal life with his proper quota of antisocial diseases. You try to get him into the auditing room and he screams all the way down the hall, and the neighbors complain, and an auditor should be able to handle such a case, and you can actually do something for this case. It wasn't true yesterday but it certainly is true today, and when we get such a case, to be able to unwrap him and put him up into an ability, to see an ability to experience and feel and live again, why of course we will actually have really done something.
The cases you are auditing by and large, are those cases that you have told enough to so that they volunteered. So of course, you're just skimming the upper cream of earth. In Clearing, we crack the person who didn't want anything to do with anything anyhow, he went all the way down. As a matter of fact, we’ve gone further south than that to a person who is normally psychotic, is now in a coma, and now we can process this person. The only person we can't process at this time, I will confess to you, clearly, is the person we can't find because he's left the body. Now, we can't process that person at this time (chuckle). In the next ACC we're taking that up (laughing).
So we've gotten it, we've gotten it pretty well, pretty well dusted off. We're a long way from Dianetics where we asked somebody to lie still at least, and pull an engram up and run it. He had to be willing to lie still and he had to be in good enough shape so that he would follow an order we could not inspect. I've had such cases as would not … they would pretend to submit to auditing and I had such cases come around to me that say later, "Boy, I sure fooled that auditor. I have been saying yes, yes, yes all week long and I haven't done a thing." Of course he walks out the front door and falls flat on his face, he's been restimmed totally (laugh). But here's, here's a long look, in other words, we can process anybody, God help them.
Now processing a person today is an enforcement of reality, only for a short period of time. That is, when they are totally unwilling because the processes themselves then snap them up to a point where they see there's some point in it, which is a pretty good thing, a pretty good thing. Now you compare this to … there's an old practice that the witch doctors in the Ubangi territory used to practice. I think the witch doctors were known as sukiryatrists (laugh). They had, they had electric shock machines that they pulsed against people's heads and they thought this made them well and when it didn't make them well, then they went in with drills and bits into the brain, you know, and did something or other in the brain and killed the thetan. The psychiatrists… er, sukiryatrists, excuse me, method of approach is totally enforced insanity under the guise of enforcing sanity. Well, it's only legitimate to enforce a reality on somebody when it is a reality which they then will find freedom by embracing.
There's a bunch of prisoners in the stockade and you know there's a door unlocked. So, you go to them and you say, "The south door is unlocked" and they say, "You silly fool, you know the south door is never left unlocked and we're gonna stay right here". It's perfectly legitimate, boy, to sock 'em on the jaw, drag 'em over, open up the south door and throw them out (laughter, applause). As long as they're outside, it's legitimate (laugh). It's true, because when they wake up they say, "You know, I'm free, thanks bud". You know, big difference! It's, evidently, not the way to play the game to throw them in a deep hole on an enforced reality and close the lid over on them. That's the way they've been playing the game so long, we've got to reverse the flow. There's no further flow in the direction of entrapment, see. That's a totally stuck flow.
Now the subject itself has advanced apparently leaps and bounds, and most people believe that every time the subject advances, everything that was known before is forgotten and lost. No! The only thing that happens to the stuff that went before is it's amplified. You can understand it a little better. The evaluation of importance makes some of it not quite so important, not quite so important as it was, but it's still there and still part of the subject.
Now the question comes up, what part of the subject is most important if we're going to clear somebody. Well this subject is yours, it isn't my idea, you see, the subject is yours. Nobody demands of you that you receive tremendous, arduous, formal training, and so forth, in order to use this subject or any part of it. We try to regulate it to keep people from getting their silly heads knocked off, something like playing with firecrackers occasionally, or pieces of dynamite – no, pieces of atom bombs – and there are certain things you should know and do in order to use the subject, providing you want to use it effectively. Now, if you don't want to use it effectively, of course just skip it. Skip anything you have to know and just pick up any old part of it and see whether or not it works, and kind of mess it up and chew up a preclear, and throw him in the ashcan and get another one. You could do that. Nobody's going to interfere with you if you do that. However, you, by and large, are men of good will, and women of good will – you notice they omit that in the bible – I think it's possible (laughing), and as a person of good will, you have a right to know the proper approach in the use of the subject which has proven most effective, and the most effective levels of approach are those which increase reality on your part up to a point where you actually command the subject. When you yourself attain reality on the various parts, you know the subject no longer commands you.
Scientology is legitimate to this degree, that it undoes itself and therefore becomes the only legitimate mental study man’s ever had. No other mental study undoes itself. In other words, anything you learn about Scientology or any restimulation that takes place by reason of Scientology, quite interestingly enough, can be undone by Scientology. Scientology can run itself out. That's a fascinating thing. It can even run me out (chuckle). People try it on me every once in a while. A preclear gets down to the last … “No”, he says, “No.” (chuckle). I hear about this every once in a while and I'm immensely flattered. I tell them the reason, the fellow still must be awfully aberrated (chuckle) you see, on some other line, to want to hold on to any valence or any part of one.
The knowledge which we take up here – I've made a short, brief list here – I can read very rapidly. The essentials which you would have to have in order to clear somebody, and the things which you would have to know in order to clear somebody can be very swiftly related, maybe not so swiftly studied, but swiftly related here. Now, it's the knowledge, you see, your command of the subject that gives you the results. It isn't your ability to walk like an automaton through a number of paces. Your understanding must be part of your auditing.
First thing is the Auditor's Code. The next is the Code of a Scientologist. The next are what we call the Training Drills. The next, not quite as important but you’ll find yourself relieved if you know that this is all there are: the Axioms. Then you have to know the following scales: the ARC Triangle Emotional Scale; the old ARC Scale. The Know-to-Mystery Scale, and the Effect Scale. These are important scales. An auditor has to know something about these things, otherwise the preclear’s reactions don’t make good sense to him.
Now the processes he must know before he runs Clear processes, and on which he should have a good reality, are as follows. What we used to call ARC Straightwire. Havingness – the old Subjective Havingness. Mock it up and push it in, mock it up and throw it away – he should know about this. And he should know the objective version of Havingness, which is Trio. He should know a thinkingness process, like “Assign an intention to that chair. Assign an intention to that wall.” See what this does to a preclear. He ought to know how to do assists, how to make a sprained ankle go down. You know, keep touching the ankle, and tell somebody to look at your fingers; and oddly enough, he should know how to, and should have done, Engram Running: the running of Engrams and Secondaries. He should know this. Because he wouldn’t possibly believe that anybody could be this butchered up by pictures. And he wouldn’t know how pictures act, and sound, and look like, and so forth, unless he has really run a few of these heavy pictures. In other words, he should have some personal acquaintance with the reactive bank, or he’ll never know what he got rid of when he clears somebody. Sort of like baling for hours and hours and hours and not knowing whether you’re baling mud, or quicksilver, or water. After a while the boat’s empty, and it’s apparently all right, but what have you done? Hanging you up on a mystery on every preclear you audit. You see, why does this fellow feel so good? Can’t understand it! You’d feel good too if you no longer had a sword going through you, a knitting needle going through your head… you know how it is… (chuckle)
He should be able to handle Present Time Problems, and that’s done of course by Problems of Comparable Magnitude, and so forth. He should be able to do these things before he gets into the subject of Clearing. Well, you say, these are old processes, and they apparently have no great bearing on Clearing, and so forth. Yes, but you don't get a reality on Clearing Processes unless you already have a reality on, you might say, bank processes. Now you get reality on the processes I just named. Can Havingness – Subjective Havingness, old time Subjective Havingness – can it do anything for anybody? Oh boy, it sure can. It’s rather easy to handle. Can Trio – what we call Trio, “Look around here and find something you could have”, and then its two other steps, which is why we call it Trio – can that do anything for anybody? Wow! If a person has just had a bad accident or something of this sort, it is easily the best process, if they can be audited and are alert, you know, more or less awake. It’s a better process than “Notice that wall”, or “Where did the accident happen, and where are you now?” These knock out havingness. And if you can run this process, it’s a wonderful process, but it’s a very good process in its own right. It doesn’t have any lasting place in the Clearing processes, but it’s something you should know how to do. Because when a preclear starts to “run out of havingness”, he gets nervous, he gets upset, he gets a lot of things. You have to know what happens. You have to know what this thing is. And the best way to know what it is is know that process, know how to run it.
And actually, that’s not many things to know. That’s not that many things to know. You’ll find them in various textbooks, Scientology 8–8008, Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health, you’ll find it in the various textbooks that exist on Scientology: ARC Straightwire, it’s one of the simplest things you ever heard of. Its earliest version was rather complicated. It took some judgement, but the pattern version, which appears in the back of Self Analysis… it’s a killer. You can run it on a group. You can have the group line charging all over the place in about an hour, or forty-five minutes, or an hour, you keep running ARC Straightwire on a group. “Recall something that’s really real to you.” In all of its various bracket versions. If you’ve never run it on a group, have a ball sometime: Get a group of people, start running it, just back of the books, back of Self Analysis, ARC Straightwire, you’ll have some interesting things there.
Maybe three or four people there who will just sit there. Of course, that’s to be expected. They just sit there. If you were running them on engrams, they’d sit there. If you were running them on anything else but the various very arduous physical processes, they would just sit there. There’s no reason for you to worry about the fact they didn’t participate in the group auditing. The truth of the matter is that they don’t participate. It’s their keynote. You can cure that too.
Now you’d say then that an introduction to Scientology would be able to use some of its principles in life. But there’s nothing short of a good command of auditing itself – nothing short of a good command of it – will produce good uniform results, and it requires a very good command of it to produce Clears. So don't think that we now have some sort of a button, whereby the auditor walks up to the preclear, presses this magic button, we get Clear. We don’t. The auditor has to have a great deal of understanding. He has to take this case apart. He has to know what this case is about. He can run it. Now, there are auditors who actually had to be retrained a bit before they can start clearing somebody. Unfortunately, the most rapid clearing requires judgement on the auditor’s part. He has to have the ability to find out what is wrong with the preclear. We’ll take that up later.
But the point is that, without a knowledge of preclears, and without a knowledge of the mind, without a knowledge of the bank, without a knowledge of all these things, he hasn’t got a prayer! Think of handing Sigmund Freud – as good as he was as a as a practitioner, he was a pretty good practitioner, do all sorts of tricks with people – and you just hand him the commands of Clear Procedure to run on somebody. Freud’s a pretty sharp boy, but I tell you he wouldn’t have made it.
I well remember lecturing before a number of St. Elizabeth psychiatrists many, many years ago. I knew that some of you’ve heard this story before. There were numerous stories came out of that particular incident. I lectured for a week and I gave the same lecture, which was the basics and fundamentals of Dianetics. And I told them about a time track, I told them little points, and then I’d say to them, “Now, in the other room there are some practitioners, and they will show you how to audit people.” And the psychiatrists never went in the other room. They sat and listened to these fundamentals. There were patients in the other room to be audited. But they never went in there. They listened about the time track, they listened about Dianetic reverie, the fact you can tell a person to go back in time, you see, you could tell them these, and they’d listen to this in theory, and one of them came to me at the end of the week, and he said “Say!” He says, “You’ve got something there in Dianetics that we can really use!” I said “So…?” And he said “Yes! Because I had a patient who was in terrible shape, and I’ve been trying for years to get this patient to find something in his past that I can analyse!” (laughter… ) “And he started running down the track until a time when he was two years old!” And he says, “Nobody can remember when they’re two.” He says, “You know, the myelin sheathing isn’t formed. And I got him back down there and there he was, lying in a crib, with his father cursing him for having dirty diapers. That was,” he said, “the father complex, right there!” (laughter) He says, “I started right in, and I told him what it was!” (laughter) “Of course, the information rather dazed him. (laughter) But”, he says, “you really got some things in Dianetics that we can use.“ (laughter) And I said to myself, “Yes, mister, but we can’t use you as a practitioner.” (laughter and applause)
One of the first things which old-time psychotherapy didn’t have was the Auditor’s Code. Every once in a while, somebody, been auditing for a couple or three years, goes back and reads the Auditor’s Code and finds a couple of points that if he’d just kept with, he would have had it made on a case or two. That one about not changing the process so long as it produced change of course really tells you all you really need to know about how long to run a process. If Freud and other people practising in that wise had had a copy of the Auditor’s Code, they would have made much more startling results, because it isn’t necessarily true that all their theories are totally wrong. Boy, did you get the modifiers on that one? (laughter) It isn’t necessarily true that all of their theories are totally wrong. Almost as covert as their psychotherapies. (laughter)
Now, every good HCA has this memorised. I don’t. (laughter) The Auditor’s Code is important enough to give a good look at here. Because unless an auditor gets across this bridge or agrees with some part of this as an operating activity, horrible things happen, that he doesn’t want to have happen. We’ve collected these things.
The first Auditor’s Code was when knighthood was in flower. I think it was taken directly from a chivalric code. The one thing that we should have preserved out of it is that an auditor has to have guts. I don’t think that’s the way the knights said it, but that’s the way I would say it. He has to have guts. Courage. I was having preclear conferences with an auditor in another country over a long-distance telephone. It was rather complicated because he was not in the capital city of that country and its phones were indifferent, and I didn’t happen to be in Washington, I happened to be at a place down in Virginia, and its phone connections were rather indifferent. And we actually got a case on the road just because of the fact the auditor had stark nerve, just guts. That was all.
He was in a household that spoke a foreign language that was totally psychotic. He had the relatives and the local medicos and trained nurses and so forth screaming at him in all directions. He just kept on going to work on a psychotic girl and he got her back on her feet and squared around. That auditor, by the way, is a rare auditor. He is superlative in this particular line. I could tell you some stories about him that are practically gruesome. He’s one of the best auditors in the country. He was auditing a criminal one day, I must tell you, he was auditing a criminal one day and I said, “Well, the man is so combative, have him fight the wall.”
The auditor, by the way, is Fernando Strada. And he called me up a few minutes later, and he says, “He won’t do it. Shall I Tone 40 it?” So I said, “Oh sure, go ahead, Fernando.” After a while I heard the building shaking next door. I didn’t pay very much attention to it. Finally the preclear comes in, his hands running raw, red blood. The building next door, one whole wall of a bedroom there we were using, plaster, lath, right straight on out to the brick, just totally wiped out. Fernando said, “Well, he was sort of unwilling to do it.” (laughter) Fernando just had taken his fists and made him fight the wall. The criminal, by the way, I don't think he’s been up before the cops since. That was quite a long time ago. This took quite a bit of doing. Now, I don't say that all auditing should result in blood. (laughter) But it was better that his hands bled a little bit than he spent the right of his hands in jail. That’s just about what it amounts to, because he was homicidal But Fernando didn’t care (laughs). Guts. That’s the one thing we should have preserved that isn’t in this code.
Here’s the code. Do not evaluate for the preclear. Let me call to your attention that psychoanalysis was total evaluation. The analyst was supposed to find out something, and then analysed that fact into the person’s head with his explanation. That was the way he went about it. Scientology, do not evaluate for the preclear. Sometimes we can stress this a little bit too strongly, and never tell the preclear that it’s the end of session, because that would be evaluating for him, you see? (laughter)
Two: Do not invalidate or correct the preclear’s data. The preclear says, “You know, I remember, I was out at that summer place, I must have been five or six.” If you’ve got somebody else in the room, “No John, that was when you were ten. You remember that, it’s not when you were five or six, it was when you were ten. “ Well, if an auditor does something like this, preclear comes up with a datum, and he hasn’t got it straight, and the auditor knows he hasn’t got it straight, if the auditor points it out, well, you’ve just finished one session. Not likely to get the next one started either.
Three: Use the processes which improve the preclear’s case. Oh, that’s a dirty, snide, remark. Of course, you don't know what processes improve the case until you’ve used some processes on the case, right? That of course gives you latitude never to use a process which improves the case…No it doesn’t really (laughs).
Now, four: Keep all appointments once made. That’s the only one I find auditors breaking every once in a while. They say to the preclear, “I’ll be there at four o’clock.” They appear at four fifteen, the preclear says “He doesn’t want to help me”, he snaps at him. They spend the remaining auditing period running this out as a Present Time Problem. Next day, auditor says he’ll be there at four o’clock, doesn’t appear till four twenty, the preclear says “He didn’t want to help me”, they spend the rest of the auditing session running this out as a Present Time Problem. I don't that’d get anywhere, do you?
Another one: Do not process a preclear after ten p.m., and do not process a preclear who is improperly fed. Very interesting pair of data. Every single datum in this Auditor’s Code was developed the hard way by the early birds in Dianetics and Scientology. Developed the hard way. We found out every person who had ever spun under processing had been audited after ten p.m. and had been audited when he was improperly fed. That was enough to put this into the Auditor’s Code. We cut that down to ribbons then. People don’t ordinarily spin under processing. And we haven’t had anybody do it for so many years I’ve almost forgotten how it is. Mostly because of this Auditor’s Code.
Do not permit a frequent change of auditors. Do not sympathise with the preclear. Now that, of course, is stretching it. That of course is stretching it too far. You should be able to sympathise with the poor fellow, now and then, shouldn’t you? I’ve heard it said that when you can no longer do something for a person, you can sympathise with him.
Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision. When the preclear runs out the door, you go out the door and you bring him back, and you say “End of Session”, of course (laughs).
Never walk off from a preclear during a session. It’s all right to threaten to, but never do it. (laughter)
Never get angry with a preclear. That’s another one that’ll spin one for a little while. Half way through a session, all of a sudden the auditor’s furiously angry with him. He just sits there and spins in. Takes him a few days to come out of it.
Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continual use of the same question or process. Always continue a process as long as it produces change, and no longer. Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear. Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of other practices. And number sixteen, which is always stay in two way comm with the preclear.
Now that code of practice is really more desirable in your kit of knowledge as an auditor – although no instructor will tell you this, I can – than a superficial knowledge of the TRs, the Training Drills. In other words, it’s more important to adhere to the Auditor’s Code than it is to adhere to Training Drills. Training Drills make it possible for you to tolerate the activities called for in the Auditor’s Code, you see that? So it’s actually the Auditor’s Code that brings the Training Drills into existence, and the Training Drills then make it possible to do so. A person studying Scientology with a desire to help his fellow man must enter on such a bridge, otherwise he will start doing things that undo the good he is trying to do. Now, the Training Drills are part and parcel to it, and these other skills are part and parcel to it. All of this data can be found in the books, and I call to your attention that there are certain scales, the ARC Emotional Scale, the Know-to-Mystery Scale, and the Effect Scale, but these scales are still very valid, and they’re still very important.
Now, that tells you that there’s a vast amount of data and a tremendous number of odds and ends of processes and types and so forth that are not now considered vital. Even though they do good things, they’re not considered vital, and it sort of narrows the lookdown a little bit, don't you see? That doesn’t omit these other things from Scientology and say “They don’t exist any more”, but it does say that these are absolutely essential, and anybody who is being trained or who wants to know the subject should enter it through this sort of a door.
Now, everybody’s always asking for a fast way, you know, to hand a friend a book, they want me to write a book, they can hand the friend a book, they read the book, becomes very absorbed in it, very interested, and then immediately becomes your friend and want some auditing, and so on, and that’s all very nice. It’s all very nice. I’m afraid that doesn’t exist, yet, because – and I don’t think it’ll ever exist – because it presupposes the ability on the part of your friend, one, to read, and two, to understand what he reads. And I will write such a book providing you audit all of your friends up to a point where they can get some reality on what I’m saying.
Thank you.
PAGE 12
CLEARING COURSE LECTURES 5.7.58
4 PREREQUISITES TO AUDITING
PREREQUISITES TO AUDITING PAGE 2 CC-04 – 5.07.58