Training of Auditors (7ACC 540716)
Series: 7th Advanced Clinical Course (7ACC)
Date: 16 July 1954
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
This is a general talk about training.
You will discover in the process of training auditors, that auditors are difficult to train. This is because you are training a person up against his livingness. You are, to some degree, training him up against a set of realities which he holds which might or might not be true. But fortunately, you are training him on the common denominator of considerations on the track which brought him to the point where he is.
But this is unfortunate because, obviously, the training will then restimulate him. All you have to do is teach somebody very thoroughly about ARC and the various parts of communication and the considerations which go into making up that communication and you will discover that he gets restimulated. His incoming comm lag, the incoming part of the comm lag, lengthens.
He might be a very bright boy and you could easily go out and show him how to drive a "Satmobile" or you could show him how to knit or do almost anything. Or how to be a general (being a private is more complicated). You could probably teach him any one of these things rather easily. And you will discover that his ability to learn to some degree slows down the second you begin to train him in Scientology. Why? Well, I've just told you why – incoming comm lag. And because, as you teach him, you start to bust up his case.
If you were to think of teaching in terms of evaluation, you might yourself, after a while, begin to conceive yourself to be guilty of an overt act against the student. You are obviously constantly evaluating for him, aren't you? Obviously.
No, you're not. You're pointing out to him the woof and warp of life. And if you didn't point this out to him, he would never get anywhere near it. His comm lag itself would shy him off of it.
Here's the difference between wisdom and ignorance: Any wisdom, from whatever source, would be better than ignorance on the same subject. Any wisdom is better than ignorance, whether it's other-determined, self-determined – it doesn't matter. But where it comes to instruction, any wisdom is better than ignorance on that subject. So, you've chosen only the lesser harmful thing.
You could train in an entirely different way. You could train in this wise: you could just process the person till he discovered all these answers. That would be possible. It would be possible if you, as an Instructor, had enough time to process everybody sufficiently long to let them discover this. That would not today be a terribly long time, but if you cared to invest some fifty or a hundred hours on a person every time you were going to train him, you could then bring him up to a realization of these various points.
The funny part of it is that the communication of the information is the more difficult part, however. An individual can know all about – know all about the subject of life and livingness and yet have great difficulty putting it into language. And so, easily the biggest stunt, you might say, in the formation of Scientology, is the adequate codification of the information so that it could be relayed, so that the information becomes a Third Dynamic subject.
The amount of harm which you will accomplish by (quote) "evaluating for" (unquote) your student is negligible today because you have processes adequate to the instruction. But it's negligible.
On the other hand, simply teaching somebody, simply training somebody will have a tendency to bring him up in tone.
I well remember the statement of an auditor who himself was never audited, who was in a hospital bed at the time an early article on Dianetics was released. And he lay there, more or less abandoned by the medicos, and he read this over and he said to himself, "Dynamic Principle of Existence is Survive! Hm! That sounds reasonable. The First Dynamic is. .. The Second Dynamic is. . . The… Gee whiz!" he says. "The intelligence is. .. The mind is. .." Just the definitions that are included in that basic article Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science and he got out of the hospital bed. And that was the end of his illness. He hasn't been sick since.
In darkness, any shining star possessing some constancy is better than no star at all. So evaluation is a word which harshly may be assigned to your instruction of a student, but how else would he get there? How else would he get there?
And quite, quite strangely, if you would care to investigate savage cultures (of which I've investigated a few) you would discover that it is ignorance itself, it is a lack of wisdom in that community itself which brings about terror, injustice, maltreatment, decay and deteriorization.
Now, here we have the final answer, I think: Wisdom afloat in a culture makes the culture. The very definition, culture, could be summated by the amount of technology, knowingness, wisdom, in existence in that culture.
What you call today Western culture is a combination of knowingnesses which summate into a higher, more decent form of life than can be achieved in other areas where that wisdom does not exist.
However much harm might come about to a society through becoming mechanized by finally mechanizing itself up to a point of where it blows itself to pieces – however much harm might come about because of that – any part of that harm could be nullified by a sufficient, broad spread of wisdom. In other words, it is only the fact that the atom bomb is arriving in mystery, in a civilization which still bows down to superstition.
It is a very superstitious culture, this Western world – very. It believes in invisible gods, visitations, mumbo jumbo. And an atom bomb arriving in that unstable a condition in the society, of course, can produce an enormous amount of harm because the humanities have been outstripped and overbalanced by a technology appertaining only to the physical universe and leaving out of its computation, the mind, life, beingness.
Never worry for a moment how much you evaluate for a preclear if it's in the line of what life is all about. And you're simply talking to him about the generalities of wisdom itself. Don't discount this. You can't hurt him.
The way you can hurt him is to evaluate specifically: "The trouble with you is . .." And that is what we mean by harmful evaluation. It almost must be preceded by, "The trouble with you is. .." And so we find the main difficulty with evaluation, in general, is the fact that it validates the difficulties of the preclear.
Wisdom is not the difficulty of the preclear. The difficulty of the preclear is his unknowingness. Now, if you were to talk to him and teach him in this wise, "I am talking to you because the trouble with you is you are so stupid, you see, because you don't know these things, because you've never run across these things, because you haven't got two brain cells to knock together. That's why I've got to talk to you this way." If you trained anyone in that sort of an atmosphere, you would not be training anyone.
The only reason you can relay the information to him at all is because it has deeply subjective experience behind it. You can relay the information of Scientology to him as well as he has experienced it on the whole track and no better – not a bit better. And so you are perhaps spotting up for him and telling him on an other-determinism that there are many unknown things on the track.
The funny part of it is that all he has to do is look around in life and recognize these facts and large chunks of bank blow on it, just like that.
You notice that a preclear can get well because you, the auditor, are indicating the process. Well, you don't conceive that to be evaluation. Well, don't ever conceive training in Scientology to be evaluation for the preclear. Have I made my point on that?
I know many instructors, and so forth, have hung up on that from time to time. Don't worry about it. Neglect it.
Now, the whole problem of instruction could be centered around the whole problem of life – communication. That's the problem of instruction. How long is that half-lag – that incoming lag? How long is it in your preclear? That's how long he's going to be studying. That's how long.
So it'd be to your interest to rather cut down this lag as you trained him, wouldn't it? So I can tell you clearly that it's almost impossible to very widely train anybody in Scientology without, at the same time, doing two other things: getting that person to do some processing and getting some processing for that person.
And if you can't get him to do these two things, why, you're sort of talking to the wind. His realities on what you are talking about are grouped in with many, many other realities. He's been told so often by a teacher or a writer that there's this, there's that, there's something or other, that he no longer has any great differentiation.
It is the processing which he does and the processing which he receives, which gives him the differentiative factor from other data and information which he has imbibed, which isolates the information for him.
Now, you can give him a barrage of information, a tremendous quantity of data and afterwards you would find, if you examined him carefully, that it had gone into and mixed up with Christian Science, it had mixed up with Rosicrucianism, it had mixed up with something he read one time that Schopenhauer wrote and Thus Spake Zarathustra – if he'd ever heard of that – and the subject of creative art and mechanical drawing. And it had kind of all mixed up and it was as though you put him in a washing machine and turned the paddles up to high speed.
Now, you could just pour the information at him and just by sheer voice, enforce upon him – enforce upon him, "Space is a viewpoint of dimension. Now if you ever answer that otherwise – space really is a viewpoint of dimension, and space is a viewpoint of dimension – and if you don't agree with me and think otherwise, why, I'm afraid we're going to have to flunk you or penalize you in some way."
This individual has not been trained, because he has not been given a differentiative factor. He has not differentiated this. Space is space is space when you first start training him. And then he starts seeing, as he is processed, that as he looks, so he has space. He begins to conceive this as a thetan. As he looks, so he has space.
Well, well! Up to that time space was just a chunk of stuff to him. It was sort of a wrrrnyah… of course. And he had no great use for it and he couldn't do anything for it.
But that was what it was and it didn't have any other value. But all of a sudden he begins to tie it in with other difficulties, and so forth, and he begins to see what space is, how it is formed, and he realizes quite clearly, "Yes, space is a viewpoint of dimension. It is a viewpoint of dimension."
He has as much space as he can perceive. And really, he has as much space as he can know. But he gets this subjectively and he gets some subjective reality upon it and even though the subjective reality which he receives upon it is slight, it has still differentiated the datum for him.
Now, let's take up the other things. Let's take up just ARC as such. ARC could be kind of a slogan – Drink better beer – or it could be classified right in there with advertising or hymns or something. Anything you could think of could have been classified with ARC.
But until he has received data concerning affinity, reality and communication, and until he's received data about it, he'll just be talking, he won't have much of a concept about it. And he certainly won't associate emotional tones or agreement with the business of communication. For instance, you'll see him doing this sort of a thing. This is where a Scientologist really starts to shine, when his case comes up to a point of where he can strike the pitch and make it stick, just in conversation. That's a very adept little trick. It isn't something you do because you have a knack. If you want to communicate with somebody, you'd certainly better find their comm band.
Now, you'd think a radio operator would be a silly ass indeed if he simply went on the air without even looking at the set to find out where he was set and he just went on the air and started pounding out a message. He didn't set for any wavelength to do anything. He just starts pounding out a message. And he finds out nobody is receiving the message. He doesn't try to find out whether or not he's on any band with a receiver, either. He just puts on some headphones and there's no reply there, why, he turns on some more juice.
And he pounds out the message again and "Wworrr, there's no reply there," and he says, "Well, no juice can get through that band so therefore that is impossible." And he will simply stop trying to communicate. And that will be the evolution of his message.
He might try for years, most people do. But when a Scientologist is really clever, he can talk to almost anybody – almost anybody. Of course, you say, "That's terrible. You mean – you mean all this warmth and so forth and fun of automatism [chuckles], that we must worship in the communication line – you mean to actually, cold-bloodedly, dispassionately look at somebody and say, 'What do you know? 1.1.' And sidle up to the fellow and say, 'You know, I… I heard… I'd hate to tell you what source… but I heard confidentially that. . .' And the fellow says, 'Yes?'"
Why, that's a terrible thing to do. Or is it? Well, unfortunately, that's just like setting up your receiver and broadcasting set. You'd have to set them up or they would never connect.
Well, he can get this reality just by conversing with men. He can walk around and try talking to the grocery clerk and a few fellows. Just add them up. Look at the old Chart of Human Evaluation and sort of add up this fellow. We notice that he is neurologically sick. You know, he has sort of a sinus trouble. We can – you know, he [sniffles]. And we look across the band and we see about where that sits on the band. And if we want a communication going through on that band, put it through.
Now, a Scientologist has an entirely different method of communication which will get through also – the method of communication which is known as talking to yourself across a distance. You simply grant enough beingness to somebody so that they will answer – realizing, of course, that that is you answering you. But they'll know after that that they answered you, which in itself is a sort of a dirty trick and something that you wouldn't do because it would interfere with somebody's self-determinism.
Well now, on the field of instruction, you're certainly interfering with somebody's self-determinism. Don't think for a moment that you aren't.
This person obviously was very self-determined to go along with the public school system and the Republican Party. And, all of a sudden, you're telling him all sorts of things that aren't held to be true in the public school system or the Republican Party, which, if they held them to be true, would no longer be the public school system and the Republican Party.
You're just crushing into him like mad. Self-determinism? Why, you're destroying his self-determinism, obviously. Or was there any there to destroy? Or I mean, how much was present? That's the question.
Now, if you want to restore his self-determinism, you've certainly got to interrupt it someplace. It's all very well for you to process a psycho – this has nothing to do with training – it's all very well for you to process a psycho and say, "Well now, he can be just as self-determined as he wants to be." But if you'll check it up with the psycho, he considers self-determinism to be in this category: can he kill you right where you sit?
Well, if he can't kill you right where you are and so forth and he determined to do so, this would be an interruption of his self-determinism and that would be that. Yet the only person around there that could get him out of the sanitarium would be yourself. Why, this doesn't seem to be reasonable at all, is it?
What self-determinism is this? I think this is what Schopenhauer meant when he said, "will." We're not quite sure what Schopenhauer meant by "will," but he meant something. He made a remark way deep into his books one time. He said, "Stubbornness is the will taking the place of the intellect," which is nice and bright. But at the same time, doesn't this rather define "will" as meant by Schopenhauer?
Will. One time somebody came tearing in from some squirrel layout, and they'd heard the first hour of a tape I had made on the subject of self-determinism, and he had decided that he was going to be self-determined, and he was self-determined and this was self-determinism. And he defined it to somebody in this wise: (this is self-determinism) "You see that – that (one of the kids' toys lying there), now, you see that – that toy lying there? Now, if you wanted it, that would be you exerting your self-determinism – go over and pick it up. But if I wanted it, why, I would go over and pick it up." And the person said, "Well, but what if I picked it up while you wanted it?"
He said, "Well, then, I could really exert my self-determinism and I could kill you if you touched it and therefore, it would have been a self-determined action."
This seemed a bit confused to me, but this boy had always been rather confused. But this is generally what's rather well-understood as self-determinism, is the exertion of unlimited will. And any time you exert an unlimited will, you violate the remaining dynamics, don't you? Here, if you went around and killed off all life in all directions in an effort to communicate with a nothingness, it doesn't look to me like you would wind up completely free. This doesn't add up as a possibility.
So therefore, what your student, if you caught him raw and he was having a bad time, would define as self-determinism would be the liberty he could use in exertion of will.
How much will is he permitted to exert? Your psycho comes up through that band, goes into a rage, he wants to get into the rumpus room or something of the sort and tear everything up because the process is cooking in some direction.
This doesn't mean that a person ought to go on being controlled, but it's just – he's starting just then to break through the band. He believes all other-determinisms are contrary to his own.
Well, now that's a very limited viewpoint right there, isn't it? "All other-determinism are contrary to my own." That's a definition of "paranoia." Well, Man's complete freedom happens to lie, unfortunately for such thinking, in his recognition of his brotherhood with the entire universe. And in his failure to recognize this, he will fail. Now, somebody goes down into apathy – there is always a mockery band on the bottom of the scale – somebody goes down into apathy and he says, "Well, I won't hurt anything. Everything can walk over me. I don't mean any harm to anything."
And you start processing this fellow and he comes up out of apathy and he'll rampage around for a while until he discovers something vaguely resembling a First Dynamic. And then he can go on up to a Third Dynamic.
Self-determinism was a concept of very early days of Scientology and the late days of Dianetics. We have exceeded the concept – exceeded it very markedly. And in the place of self-determinism, we get freedom of viewpoint.
Instead of self-determinism, we now have freedom of viewpoint. You see how these two things would merge, one with another, and how freedom of viewpoint is a tremendously higher concept than self-determinism? Because freedom of viewpoint would mean it's perfectly all right for you to argue with yourself any day you want to, if you'll just remember you're arguing with yourself.
You can even forget that if you'll remember it again.
Here you have yourself at source-point and yourself at receipt-point. And when an individual is really doing well, he doesn't care whether he's at source-point or receipt-point or how much distance is in between them or how close they are together or whether they're completely identified – it's perfectly all right with him. He can be relaxed about it. Not because he's in apathy and has to be relaxed about it, but because he can be relaxed about it, that's why.
And so he can get into a horrendous argument with somebody and then try not to cheat and win it simply by changing the other fellow's mind from behind him. Now, that's a dirty thing to do, to occupy both source-point and receipt-point at will. But it's a higher concept than self-determinism any day of the week.
This doesn't mean that the person has to be weak or something of the sort. You know, it takes an awful lot of courage to receive your own zap. And when you're really in good shape, why, if you're going to zap receipt-point, you're really going to zap receipt-point, you better be able to be at receipt-point to be zapped. Because if you aren't able to be,
you have already reduced freedom of viewpoint down to a continuation and endurance of a single point. You dropped immediately into a persistency of beingness. And in that persistency of beingness, there is no more freedom than is inherent in the beingness itself. And that is a limited freedom certainly.
Because, look, just one person that's monitored by is you. It's monitored by at least you. And so it isn't free within its own line, it'd be free under you, this beingness, which is being monitored from source-point alone. Your body, right this moment, is only free under your rule. But within that limitation, it has some freedom. And this is beingness.
So, in training, in training don't ever worry about interrupting somebody's self-determinism any more than you would worry about barring the door if a psycho – not comparing the student to a psycho – but if a psycho tried to leave the room madly because you told him to touch the wall, you'd be quite content to bar the door and go on trying to do the process, wouldn't you? Well, that sure interrupted his self-determinism. His self-determinism was to scram.
In such a wise, you have to be, to some degree, a policeman in all training. You have to know where to cut the line. You have to know where to indulge freedom and where to impose a barrier. And until you have achieved an agreement on the part of your students as to the workability, the simplicity of the technologies which you're trying to relay, you will find you have to bar many doors. Don't forget to open them up again after they have a reality on what you're trying to teach.
In training, the self-determinism which you're trying to bring forward is the actual self-determinism of the person, just as 8-C – not an imposed social determinism which is, as far as we can see, "will" taking the place of the intellect.
Okay.
TRAINING OF AUDITORS PAGE 2 7ACC-22A - 16.07.54
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1