View source for Auditor Interest (20ACC 580808)

'''Series:''' 20th Advanced Clinical Course (20ACC)

'''Date:''' 8 August 1958

'''Speaker:''' L. Ron Hubbard

----

← [[Lecture_Index_20ACC|Back to Series]]


Hiya.

Somebody wants some information here on adjusting anchor points in the body. You got a long way to go before you get smooth enough to do that.

Adjusting body anchor points is a very interesting exercise, but you have to be a pretty smooth auditor in order to do it. Reality of pc has to be very high; doesn't do much good unless you do – unless it is.

This is the twentieth lecture of the 20th ACC, August 8, 1958, and today we are going to take up a summary which simply adds up to a description by me of a session.

Summary of what you do, how you do it, what you can do. And this is so far above what you can do right now that you're going to get lost right away. So stand by to get lost.

Tell you right at the beginning, you're right now at a point of auditing where you can learn something. And don't kid yourself, you're no further along than that – any of you.

Given the ability to do all of the TRs perfectly, given the ability to do it – do them hour after hour, day after day, with complete perfection – you can relax. That's interesting; you can relax.

And the TRs form, simply, the woof and the warp, the solid foundation from which you audit. You no longer confront with or audit with the TRs. But anybody who knew his business, anybody who was an excellent auditor could sit there and look at you and recognize that every TR was present and functioning. But somebody who merely knew the TRs, who had just read them, would be unable to discern the presence of any of them.

Now, that is a shattering blow after you've gone ahead and learned all of this and you're doing just fine. No, it's not at all. You've simply got one small toe on the bottom rung of the ladder of being able to play this piano called auditing.

The reason why you were grilled and grooved and hammered and pounded so hard into the TRs is they get an auditor over the idea of omitting or flinching from some portion of auditing and substituting for it yak and ineffectiveness. You understand that? Just …

Going on and on and on and on and on about this, about that, and following down this line and that line and floundering around and going over the hills and far away, and getting lost in the green woods, and getting the preclear out over someplace else and finally winding up by straightening up his jewel collection instead of his case, is the normal result of ducking out with a TR.

But if you watched me audit and if you watched a very small handful of very fine auditors audit, you would swear to Pete that was what was happening. You would swear to Pete that was what was happening, that we had just ducked out on the case and we were over the hills and gone. And it had nothing to do with anything that was going on.

A process, some Straightwire, Two-way Comm, a process, another process, Two-way Comm, Straightwire, a scout; additional process that you never heard of before and neither did the auditor until that minute, flatten it out, Two-way Comm, a scout, a little more Straightwire, then a process, and then a process and a process and a process to – ah, Straightwire. Ah! Starting a session. Now we start a session – start a session for two and a half hours with Two-way Comm, a scout, Straightwire, Help, two-way bracket, scout, Help, two-way bracket, Two-way Comm, Straightwire, Two-way Comm, a scout, pinning another Rock chain and here we go again.

Now I see from the startled and fixed looks upon your faces that you don't think this is the way it is.

But I'll tell you something; I'll tell you something. Not one auditor, including me, can audit until he can do a totally technically perfect repetitive session without a single flinch anyplace along the line, without a single flub any way along the line, and only after that can he relax.

If a fellow can do ten, twenty hours, let us say, of the CCHs on Tone 40 auditing, or if he can do technically perfect, repetitive, formal auditing, can he then afford to relax. Because he knows himself then, that he is not ducking out on anything. He's just going through that case like a sawmill.

And I told you a joke yesterday, and none of you got it. And I will tell you the joke again now.

Given a session in progress, the Rock located and isolated, I could clear you in fifteen minutes. That's a joke – nobody's laughing. Oh, somebody – dawned on them – oh! Pc in-session; auditor cleared with the pc perfectly. How many hours do you think you ought to spend on that? I should say three-quarters of the intensive.

The Rock scouted down, located, its lock chains peeled off of it and in plain view – boy, there goes another awful lot of hours.

And of course, if it was totally in view, with total reality on the part of the preclear, he'd just go birumph, Clear! And it would take you those fifteen minutes to end the session.

All right, now you've got it.

You see, when you know everything that is supposed to happen, when you know everything you are supposed to do and when you can do all of these things with ease, you are no longer in a state of super-embarrassed self-consciousness. You are actually confronting the case. Your interest is no longer on whether or not you did this or you did that, or something of the sort. Your interest is on the case. And you know well enough how to do this, that, that when you decide to do it, you do it effectively, and you get it done! Now, right now, looking at you auditing, you are being effective, you are being infinitely more effective than anybody less well trained. You are being much more effective, exactly the way you are auditing, than you've ever been it before. That, I can absolutely guarantee you and promise you, and I could prove this on profiles.

I could take any auditor here, and I could stack him up against any auditor less thoroughly trained, and even though the guy less thoroughly trained might look a little more relaxed or something, you know, he might look a little more natural or something, I could take any one of you and a preclear's profile, and any other such auditor and a preclear's profile – the end of twenty-five hours I would show you your pc's profile, way up. And the other guy's profile, "Well, he just – he gained a little bit. Pc's a lot happier," he'll tell you. "The profile, the profile doesn't reflect the actual gains of the case. Preclear told me that he was much happier." He's knocked the preclear down into some propitiation, you know, and the preclear says, "I'm better. I'm better." Got this? All right. With that proviso I will then unload on you with a barrel-load of grapeshot, which is this: you look to me, in auditing, like a bunch of little wound-up marionette dolls. You understand that?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

That's a very legitimate comment, isn't it?

Male voice: Yes, it is.

You'll still do better and get further, auditing like that, because you know better now what to do. But unless you improve, your time to clear – after you get out of here (of a pc) – will be two or three times the number of hours that should be required.

The difference is that other people who have not been through what you've been through won't be able to clear anybody.

Now, I'm just telling you that from where you are at this moment up to a terrific auditor is just another step. You're on the road; you're on the road. But you've now got to learn to live again. You got to learn to be able to do all this and still be alive.

Now, the whole lot of you can get Clear going right on auditing this way, particularly if I hang over your shoulders like I will be next week, breathing hotly down the back of your neck, saying such deep, abstruse things as, "Get him to define a people pleaser," you know. "Get him to define a people pleaser." Person saying, "Well, how could you help a people pleaser," and so on, so on, so on, so on, so on.

"Get him to define a people pleaser!"

"People pleaser. People pleaser? People pleaser. People pleaser? I don't know, what is one?" Now, I'm not trying to give you the idea that you should go on auditing with me breathing down the back of your neck. Got that? You got that? I want you to get the idea you should go through the rest of an auditing career with the idea that an Instructor is about to leap every time you make a flub.

Instead of that I want you to get the idea that you can do all of these things perfectly and still look alive and natural. Only an expert, such as you're well on the way to becoming, could discern, in some of the better auditors, these TRs working, just working, working right straight through there.

What's he running? He's comm bridging, he's comm bridging into a new scout. In the process of the scout he finds something interesting; he knocks it out with Straightwire and goes on.

Well, where was the bridge into the Straightwire? The preclear isn't even aware of the fact that a new process has been entered upon or left. It's just scouting questions, obviously. See, he's getting everything done he can do. See? He's just sawing all the proper angles and chunks and polishing the wood in the proper place, and getting it all corded up over here, and getting it all out of the way here, and getting it all added up someplace else. He's making every question count. Even on a scout he can't neglect knocking out a couple of major aberrations.

Halfway through a scout he said, "Music boxes, music boxes, music boxes," and he gets pshewww, you know. Thing falling off, he thinks "I might as well punch up the cognition here." "Music boxes? You – people pleaser? That's a good music – music box a good people… Well, fine. Did you ever know anybody with a music box? Family ever have any music boxes? Anybody have any music boxes around the house? You ever see one?" "Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. As a matter of fact, I remember now, oh, yes, my mother beat me within an inch of my life for breaking up her music box when I was five. I remember that. Remember it vividly, vividly, you know – swish, swish, swish, swish, swish, swish, swish! Ah, fine." "Now you do recall – you do recall that instance?"

"Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah."

"You used to be very fond of your mother, hm?"

"Oh, yes, yes, very fond of her. It was an awful break with her."

"You were very fond of her, though?"

"Yeah, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah."

"Well, that's fine. Now, let's look up something else here. Let's look up something else that could be a good people pleaser." Pc isn't aware of anything peculiar happening. Auditor said music boxes, and the pc accommodatingly told him about it, and the auditor was nice – nice enough to get interested in it.

And he ran two processes in the process of simply asking a couple of questions. First question was a Straightwire question, followed up by a couple of more Straightwire questions, making him remember just that exact instant. You know? So, let's make it go bang! All right, now let's plow the rest of it out by doing what? Recalling, if possible, an earlier moment of affection for Mother, which is another process entirely and which applies to psychosomatics. So here was a scout with Straightwire, and the standard – what you will hear about shortly – a standard psychosomatic process. You get the idea? Followed up by a scout. But done with sufficient ease that nobody got parked on the comm lines, nobody got parked on the time track, nobody got stabbed to the heart, nothing got broken in any way.

He just thought, "Well, to hell with auditing people pleasers if we can just get this lock out of the road. See? To hell with auditing music boxes as people pleasers, let's just take the thing off the case. We don't need it, let's just blow it while it's right here to hand. See? There it is, blow it. He'd blow it.

Lock chain he's looking for probably had nothing to do with music boxes, but he keeps this in mind, and he says, "Music boxes, he-he-he-he-he! Musical theta traps." Something bad starts happening to the case, you know, a case looks boggy and sagging and freezing up, and so forth. He remembers he did have one gorgeous lead-in there, that was music boxes and he blew a lock off of the thing. He also has a dozen more, but we're thinking about music boxes, and he says, "You ever see a theater that played its music out in the marquee so that you'd go in and buy your ticket?" "Oh, yeah."

Take him on down, hit the Rock chain. Get the idea? He knows his business. He knows his business, he knows the processes that are effective and he knows his business. And there's a very definite aliveness in his auditing.

Now, in the TRs you'll find a great difficulty in trying to acknowledge the origins of a pc. Do you realize that more pcs go out of session because of mishandled origins than anything else? Someday you'll maybe learn how to handle an origin perfectly, but perhaps there is no "perfect" way of handling an origin. I can only tell you the way I know origins can be handled; I can only tell you how origins can be handled well.

To be able to do it requires that you first recognize that there can be an origin, and that it doesn't necessarily get in your road as an auditor. Most auditors believe that origins are something that gets in your road.

No, origins are that from which the auditor tailor-makes with scissors, needle, and thread, the cognitions of the preclear. They are wonderful things to handle. So instead of origins holding up the case, you should learn how to weave them into a case recovery. They have use.

In addition to that you should know how to turn off origins while giving the preclear at the same time complete confidence that you have received it. Oh, that's a fantastic thing.

As a matter of fact, he'll go on originating along a certain line, until he is certain that the auditor has understood it and received it. Understanding is the instrument that handles the origin. Understanding it.

Well, how do you understand it? One of the ways is to find out more about it. Well, the best way to find out more about it is, want to know something more about it, which tells us that we have a point here which is not synthetically manufactured. It can't be manufactured synthetically. You have to be interested in what cases are all about to handle origins.

Now, you can get into trouble handling origins and handling responses by being too interested, but it usually comes out all right in the wash. The only error I've been conscious of for some time is getting too interested in people's origins. Not that it extended the case, or I led them off of it or something; they got upset because I was that interested, but only when the pc had not offered it as an origin.

Now, let me follow this through. See, he didn't really intend to originate, and I received what he didn't intend to originate because I'm so interested in his case. Get the idea? And then I go in on that real quick, and it sometimes startles the pc into practically an auditor Code break which I then have to patch up.

He says, "Well, the best people pleaser there is, is a wrecked truck."

Well, now that's comprehensible. But he says, "The best people pleaser there is, is a totally smashed planet scattered all over earth." And you say, "What?"

Pc is liable to say, "Well, you've invalidated my answer and …" See? And you probably have.

You say, "What?" You know, "Where'd that come from?"

Sometimes they give you answers that sound like forecasts of something or other, you know, and you want to know what the weather is and you ask them.

And any time you take apart their answers and try to get anything out of their answers, you're liable to get into trouble. I don't think there's an auditor so skilled at auditing anywhere, that he wouldn't get into trouble if he started taking apart very many of the preclear's responses to the Help questions. See? So, there's the auditor considering that an origin has been made, and answering up to it when it hasn't been made, and this busts things up sky wide and handsome, because the preclear quite normally says, "All right, so I can't have that answer. So, you won't acknowledge it." And you get off the other way.

Safest thing to do, of course, is to wait until the pc originates something non sequitur to the answer, and says, "Say, you know, the last four or five theta traps I was in, they always used music." Now you got a little backlog of wonder about all this, why, you can pull the whole thing up by the roots, because a preclear has volunteered it. Get the idea? But I never let a preclear's bad reactions to an auditor's rather natural reaction prevent me from communicating with the preclear.

And I don't think any auditor ever ought to sit there in an attitude of withdrawal, simply because he might upset the preclear.

I don't care how many preclears I upset. I don't give a darn. I can put them back into session almost faster than they can get out and not with any brutality, either.

But an error that you would make would be not communicating with the preclear's state of affairs, in not investigating and asking about things that you're interested in, in the case.

You think it's real peculiar, something about this, see, you think it's real peculiar that the preclear should be so fascinated or upset with, or something, on the subject of juvenile delinquency since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything we're running! Error! This is an auditor error now, just sitting there listening to this while you're interested and would like to know more about it. Error.

Preclear is going on, "Juvenile delinquency this and juvenile delinquency that and so forth." He's not originating; every one of his questions had to do with juvenile delinquency. Every answer he gives you: "Juvenile delinquency this, juvenile delinquency that; a teenage boy could blow up a bank, you know." This guy is a thirty-five, forty-year-old man. What's he talking about "Juvenile delinquency do this, juvenile delinquency do that." You never heard any of this on the case before, and he goes on for a while talking about this.

That's an error. It's not an error as far as the preclear is concerned, it's an error as far as you're concerned. You're withholding interest. And that is the only crime you can commit in the final analysis. Man, you can invalidate preclears, and get out of it – scat. You can stamp all over their favorite things, you could say, "Well, I don't believe – I don't believe in integration myself. I know you're going all out for it, but I don't." You can go this haywire – you could even go as haywire as to say, "Well, from everything you've said I think your mother's a pretty nice girl – why don't we come off of this?" That's pretty haywire. That's pretty bad; it'll make a pc break every time. But that one you can patch up; that one, you can put the whole thing back together again. You understand? You're within the limits of reparableness.

But an auditor's withheld interest from the case is not within the limits of repairability because you are not being audited as the auditor.

After a while you stack it up to a wooden mannequin just going through the motions of auditing – withhold that interest, withhold that interest.

Go ahead and get interested in cases. It's everything – the whole woof and warp of auditing depends on your interest in a case.

And we go back to what I was discussing first which is origins. And the whole ability to handle origins is contained in interest, and the moment that you have lost your interest in the case, and you haven't patched it back up again, and you haven't squared it away, you'll stop handling origins.

Pc will originate something and you give him a cheery "Yes, yes. Fine. Thank you." And give him the next auditing question – they go out of session, swish, and no auditing gets done thereafter.

And you say, "Why isn't this fellow progressing and getting well?" Well, you're not interested in him, that's why. He won't come up with any people pleasers unless he's got a people there. Something to remember.

Well, how do you handle an origin then? Well, just if you're interested in cases in general. You know, I've heard it said that a person really is never interested in a hobby until he knows something about it. It's fairly true.

Now, you can make this work reverse way to. You can take a fellow down and show him some rocks in a rock collection, and you can show him the names of a few of these rocks and tell him a few interesting facts about rocks. And if you don't push the information off on him, if he's kind of volunteering it, you're liable to see him out in the field someplace collecting a few rocks. You know? "I wonder if I could find any more of this malachite schist that this fellow was talking about. He said it was all over this country. Ah, there's a nice piece." Well, he'll throw a couple – few pieces of rocks in the car, you know. And next thing you know a little time go by, well, he'll say, "Boy, was I stupid. I used to only collect things that had something like hornblende in them, you know, just green discoloration and so forth – uh, looking for, really – I was looking for much more …"

In other words, he's gotten technical enough to be critical of what he was doing. Got the idea? But he's well advanced on the line to being a connoisseur in ice-cream cones if he simply knows which store sells the best ones. See? He's well advanced.

He is advanced along the line if he's merely wondering which stores sell the best ones. Get the idea? But, he's becoming a connoisseur; he's getting interested. You see? Now, let's carry this out a little further. You could say that regardless of whether you are human or not – and fortunately there are very few human beings present in this class – very few. Nothing I detest more than a professional human being. And these pros really get me.

You can't be human and be right. And a few of you people can be right, so that automatically makes you unhuman; unhuman, not inhuman.

Now, if we bat this guy in the head or he bats himself in the head about collecting rocks, you know, he goes out in the field and farmer says he can't go into that field and he finds out there are no fields he can go to to collect rocks, and there are no beaches where there are any rocks, and people around him are discouraging him from locating rocks, and having anything to do with geology. And the local museum changes its curator and they don't have any collection down there anymore; they sent it all to the "not Rockefeller" Institute or something. What the hell happens to his interest in rock collecting, huh? Well, it was manufactured just by the fact that there were some, and somebody told him something interesting about them. And then he went on and developed into a good rockhound, see, connoisseur: a real one. A geologist just would, in a university, would sneer at him. He would say, "An amateur." Get into other fields they call you an "amateur" but when you get mixed up with universities you become an "amateur." A professional always sneers at the amateur, just as you would sneer at some amateur auditing. You go around and you see some and you say, "Oh, my god! Zzzzt! How did that ever get loose?" And then hypocritically you say, "I think you're doing just fine." Eighteen origins, all of them dropped flat. Auditing question flubbed every question, not just once. Process changed fifteen, sixteen times; auditor Q-and-Aed with the preclear. They started out to do something about his laryngitis and they wound up running bald heads and they never started the session and it kind of dwindled out to nothing and they both went out for some Cokes, you know.

You can see this guy up the track someplace or another; he's still in-session eight or nine years from now. Sessions never begin, you know. Everything you know is right is being totally violated and you say, "Nothing could possibly happen here." And you would just be absolutely flabbergasted to find out once in a while he gets something done. You know, it's sort of like you – hit or miss – get something done. If you do enough of it, you're liable to hit something. But here's case interest, actual interest in cases.

Now, nearly every one of us knows something about a case intellectually, that we've actually never seen in a case. We know something could be theoretically true about a case, or a certain combination of circumstances would be true about a case, but we've never just sat down and seen it right there – bang! You know? So there's lots of those things and you kind of keep wondering if these will ever turn up, and you're looking now on a via. After a while you begin to look fairly directly. You know, you say, "Well, that's what that case is all about – phewww! See? And it's this way and it's that way." Now, we don't collect cases, we don't collect cases, we spoil them; we're case spoilers, we ruin them. We alter the cases around.

But the reason psychiatry has utterly flopped, and it's one of the biggest flops in the world today, is because they carefully preserve them. They're scared stiff of spoiling one of those gorgeous manic-depressive schizes, you know. They have this wonderful maniac back in a cell and he just keeps gibbering and gibbering and gibbering, just exactly the way Kurtz Schnutweiler says in his book on Mania, My Mania.

Fellow came into the psycho ward up here, one of the hospitals north here, that had a twitch which was apparently an exact textbook case of Norbert Wiener's. And I promised Norbert I would never mention the name of cybernetics, so of course I can't, you know. And I never do anyway.

And so anyway, he writes in there about a feedback or reflex moronic type reaction – a "moronic reaction" or something of the sort, whereby you stick a needle in him someplace and you can actually trace the current pattern as it goes through the neurons and get it back somewhere else.

I'll be a son of a gun if a standard case that matched this textbook didn't come into one of these mental hospitals. You know, they didn't do anything with the guy for two or three months, but every doctor in the area went up and saw this.

When you hit a certain nerve area in the fellow's upper back shoulder, you got a leg twitch. And so doctor would come up, and they'd hit him in that area and then they'd watch that leg twitch, you know? And it's wonderful – wonderful case. There must be – there must be something to cybernetics because look at that, guy obviously couldn't do that unless there was an electronic circuit, and there it is. And there must be something about the body that has to do with electronics.

And I heard one of them say, "This proves conclusively that we should continue to shock people." I don't know how it proved that, but it did. They have a tendency to preserve cases.

Now, as long as you have a vast number of available people, as long as there are lots of people available, you never preserve cases. But more importantly you'll never collect any people unless you preserve your interest in how cases are made up.

And you go checking your interest simply because you've been told that you should go through an exact patter, and it's you that'll wind up in trouble.

The idea of being withstrained and withheld from the preclear all the time when you say he said, "What? What?" The "don't get it!" "How did that add up with which?" I had a lovely girl here the other day whose pc was busy running space opera. She said to me, "But I don't know a thing about space opera." Well, I'll clue you, I don't know anything about outer space, space opera either except what I've learned from pcs and my own track. There she had all the raw materials of space opera sitting in a pc's chair.

Now, it could upset the pc if she says, "Now, how could you help a spaceship?" or whatever was being run, you know, "How could you help a spaceship?" And the pc said, "Oh, I could use a zongo ray."

She says, "What?" She says, right out of context, you know, right out of session, she says, "What did you say?" "I said I could use a zongo ray."

"Well, what is a zongo ray?"

Now, the pc is liable, actually, I will confess to you, liable to go right back on that question – possibility – and say, "Now, wait a minute. You mean you won't accept this answer?" You know? Uhhuhh. And you have to put them all back in-session again and patch it all up. But it's worth it if you can find out what a zongo ray is! Therefore, actually, you cannot afford to get interested in cases unless you're a very expert auditor! You can do it all by the book and not by the book, and sitting there and handing it out any way, shape or form. You know what you're doing and know what results you are going to get. Now you can really be interested in cases.

I have a trick in handling origins that isn't really a trick. I always grab the fundamental from which the guy is leaping.

You know, he says, "Well we had this train, and it kept – lots of tunnels and on this particular planet there were nothing but spongy-like rocks, you know, very spongy, and so on, and we could bore tunnels through. But the trains actually never ran on track, and so forth. And they're – they're doing this and that – that – that and – and I got into a lot of trouble because I was just a conductor, you understand? Later on I was in for that planet. But anyway, conduct and, boy …"

I'm saying man, this guy has gone so far off the Rock, and this data is fascinating – but – but he's totally omitted this because his takeoff point is apparently missing. And I'm more interested in how the hell we ever got on this planet with all these trains, from a perfectly innocent processing of a powder puff. You know? And I'm left with a jump from a powder puff to a planet.

And I always ask for the gap in the origin; I always ask for the gap that interests me, you see? When you ask him for the missing link, you stop and say, "Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Okay! Yeah! Good! Fine! WHOA! STOP! Shut up! Now, listen! Listen now. (Finally got that down.) All right, now, listen." You know, actually say that to a pc. You have to patch it up, so what! You can. He'd get used to it after a while and realize that you can patch it up, so why protest.

So you say to him, "Now, now we ye got this slowed down, would you please tell me how we got from a powder puff to a planet? I'm not criticizing you, I just want to know." You know? Well, that's about the crudest version of handling an origin I know, but is more effective by far than, "Thank you. Good." This guy is pouring his heart out to you, and you say, "Thank you. Good. Good. Fine. Thank you. That's fine. You ready for the next question?" "Mm-hm."

Now, there's a wide gap between the one overt handling of the origin and this other one. But I'll tell you that the overt handling of the origin is more effective. It's not very correct but it's more effective. And it's easier on the auditor because it does display his interest in the matter.

Now remember it's your auditing time, not the pc's. And you always get sold on this because if you sell auditing by the hour, he's paying it forth by the hour. I think this is just a foolish economic trick from my viewpoint.

Why anybody should pay for it by the hour to interest me is more than I can fathom, but they do. You get the idea? But that's the way I look at it. And the time isn't precious because he bought it – so what! He didn't buy my time in the first place. If I'm running the auditing session it's still my time track. Thoroughly! So this guy's going on and he says, "These big spongy mountains and these spongy rocks and these trains and, you know, they just had borers right on the nose of them, and they kept going through these trains. And after a while they had all these holes, this – this, and I was just a conductor, and later on I became emperor." And I say – if I'm really interested in all this – I say, "Wait a minute, what planet is this?" Now, this is getting a little easier, see, to handle. "What planet is this?" "Well," he says, "planet Zed. Yeah, planet Zed."

"Was this a long time ago?"

"Oh, I guess it was. Don't rightly remember exactly, but quite a while ago," so forth.

I say, "How about these – these mountains? Keep talking about the sponginess and so forth. Does that have anything to do with powder puffs?" See? "Any association between these two? What's the gap?" "Oh, I don't know. I don't know. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah – yeah, I – I – I get it. I get it. I get it. I – I get it. Had a girl on planet Zed and her name was Powder Puff." Well, anyhow…

If he could interest me with his origin, fine. If I can get the case advanced with it at the same time, wonderful. If he's just burning auditing time and isn't interesting me, I pull the basics out from underneath him.

I'd say, "What started you thinking about that?" "Do you remember the old gang?" "What started you thinking about that?" He has to reach down at the bottom of the chain that he's now dispersing from. He pulls that, tells you about it and you've got the origin and you keep on going.

But remember, it's your preclear; it's your preclear. And he has resigned himself to the Fates. He stands naked in the winds of the universe, far as you're concerned. You want to find out something about the whole track? You've got a preclear right in front of you. Get the idea? You want to find something about the sex life of the Moranga Bongie Indians that he has just mentioned? You've got a preclear right in front of you; it's your preclear.

You think he has the most peculiar computation you ever heard of. Even at the expense of practically cracking the whole session up, find out about it; it's your preclear. About time you took ownership of these things you're collecting.

And if you think that your interest invades his privacy, you've got no business auditing, because you're a professional privacy invader. And when that dawns on you at long last, that you can invade privacy, that it's your job to invade privacy and unless you do invade a bit of privacy, you haven't got anything to be interested in except a body sitting in a chair. And I know a planet where they sell these things rather cheaply. Twenty-five cents you can always go out and buy a body; they have a body factory up there. Of course it costs you about ten, fifteen thousand dollars to get a body that moves and talks, and that sort of thing, but you can still raise ten or fifteen thousand dollars.

No, you just got a body in the chair – who cares about a body in the chair? If you want bodies, why, take up a little internship in medicine or something of the sort. They give you bodies: they smell, but, you can – you can cut them up or do almost anything you want to with them, you know? No, you're looking at the whole history of this universe. You're looking at the cross-computations of a thetan who is in and out of trouble in this way and that and it's interesting material. And as you know more about it, and as you find out more and more about it, the more of a connoisseur you are, the more there is to know about it.

Do you realize none of you – one of you asked me the other day, "Are there any of the old track maps around?" Yeah, I suppose there are some of the old track maps around. Ah, now, but don't ask me about a track map. You're sitting with the finest E-Meter ever made in your hands and you're sitting with a person as a pc who has been at it and with it since the very, very earliest beginnings. And you can read old Electropsychometric Auditing and find out how to plot dates.

"Was it greater than a trillion years? Was it less than a trillion years? Ahh. Was it greater than a billion years or less than a billion years? Ahh. Was it greater than a million years, or less than a million years? Ahh. Was it greater than five hundred million years or less than five hundred million years? Ahh! Less than. Well, was it greater than two million years or less than two million years? Now where is it there?" And then get it with over and under, over and under, over and under, all of a sudden, "It was 1,750,922 years ago." And that was the time the first Fac One implantation was made here on Earth, see, something on that order. Not necessarily true, but you can spot them, you can nail them. And man, when you nail one of those things down on the time track, your pc will turn into a canary; he'll tell you all about it.

"This spaceship landed, and it was – we were all standing around there and we were minding our own business, and the spaceship landed and a bunch of guys in funny looking white jumpers jumped out. And we didn't know anything about that sort of thing and one of them took the headman by the arm, took him up on a hill and there was a little flash up there (we didn't see what it was) and the headman came back and we said, 'What happened?'" "And he said, 'Well, I went up on top of the hill and there was suddenly nothing.'" "And we said, 'Oh, yes. Well, then these guys are not particularly dangerous.' And 'So, well, that's all I remember.'"

Now where do you err then in auditing? Come on, where do you err in auditing, hm? What's the difference now between being able to do all this perfectly and doing it naturally?

Audience: Interest.

You said it!

And that will come and your diffidence will disappear at the moment when you discover completely, absolutely and without argument that you can patch up anything that happens in a session! And then you'll stop being afraid of making something bad happen.

Now, it would be absolutely fatal to tell somebody who wasn't as well trained as you, this same fact! You see why it would be fatal? While they're trying to patch up a Code break, they're really struggling with the fact that they can't ask a question! Huhhh! How can you patch up a Code break when you can't ask a question of the pc? Being able to handle, guide, and square around a case with speed, eventually gives you enough confidence to be awfully interested.

When you find out that you actually do not any longer injure a case no matter what you do to it – because you can patch it up as fast as you knock it apart – then you can afford to be as interested and as prying, and as peeping Tom, and as investigatorish and as honest and as real as you actually are in an auditing session as an auditor. You get me? Now, that's what gives you confidence. That permits you then, interest.

Yes, you ask a pc about this peculiar answer and how that added up. And the pc says, "That answer is peculiar? Oh, you mean you won't accept this answer?" "Nope. And I didn't really mean that but what the hell were you saying?" "Oh, now you've done it! Now you've done it. And I was going along so nicely. And I had this somatic all set." Oh, it happens; that's the commonest one there is. And you say after that, "Well, that must never happen again and I must never question or challenge the pc's answer simply because I'm interested." All you got to do evidently, sometimes, is raise your eyebrows. The person says, "Well, how could I help you?" "Well, I could go out and I could get a police officer and have him shoot you." And he says this with a smile, you know. No viciousness behind it, you know.

And you say, "What!" Or maybe you just say …

Pc says, "Code break! Code break! Code break! Code break! Code break!"

Now, if you're afraid of the pc doing that, you'll get afraid to be interested. So your answer is to now acquire from this moment on, enough confidence in your ability to patch up a case and square it around, that it doesn't matter what Code breaks you lay in on the line. Do you understand that your ability to patch it up is the splendid exactness with which you can handle those TRs. After that, you can do anything.

Now, a comm bridge is there because you don't want to startle or shock a case by changing a process. That merely demands of you then a very sliding, smooth shift from one process to another. That's what a comm bridge is.

A comm bridge is not necessarily, "Well, in three commands we're going to do another process. Is that all right with you? Thank you." Yes, that's the school textbook answer. But that's – that's perfect, except for this one thing: interest in the preclear, interest in his reaction.

You say, "How are you getting along? Getting along all right? You doing all right now? Think this thing is tamped down and in place?" You know? "Think in the next question it's going to rise up and do anything with you? No. You think you got it licked? All right. All right. Now, here's just the last question now. And don't run into anything hot on it now. Let's – last question. Last question. Okay. How could you help a bugaboo? Good! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! All right, that's all! That's all of that! We're off of that now! "Now listen, I've run into something here and this needle is sticking all over the place on the subject of mothers-in-law. And I think we're getting in the session – have you got a present time problem you haven't told me about? Oh, you haven't? You don't even know of a mother-in-law? You haven't even got one? Well, has your wife got one? Oh, yeah, oh, well, what's your mother been up to? I – it's the first I've heard that she lives with you. Now did you come into this session with a PT problem that you didn't tell me about at the beginning of session? Oh, you did. All right.

"Now, we're going to run a little process to handle this sort of thing, because I think we got to get it out of the road. And I want you to describe the problem here. Describe this problem – mother-in-law – problem. All right, now let's get this," you know? And we go through Problems just as a process, bring it up on the other side, and all of a sudden we got a different acting case. You understand? And you say, "Thanks. Now how do you feel about that? Do you think – you're okay on this subject now? All right. Now, that was the last question; that was the last question – we're on the subject.

"Now, let's get back and do something more pertinent to the existing situation. All right? Now, the auditing command is 'How could you help a bugaboo?' See? Let's get in there now and let's clean up some more bugaboos. Get the idea? Hm? You take up what needs to be taken up. You don't Q-and-A with the case and take up everything it presents. You know better than to go on auditing the case with evidently a PT problem every time you say, "mother-in-law" or something like this, or "A mother-in-law could kill a bugaboo." "Well, now, how could you help me?"

"A mother-in-law could fry me in oil."

"How could I help you?"

"A mother-in-law …"

Well, it's all right if it just changes and shifts and disappears. What if it keeps hanging up? Hangs up for ten or fifteen minutes, I begin to believe that there is something here that we ought to look into, and I am not averse to looking into it at all – pang! And I go right ahead and look into it, because I'm not afraid to be interested.

All this adds up, maybe, to a bunch of protests from the preclear every now and then.

"Well, you've run too many processes on me. I'm all tangled up and confused. We've got about five started now and we haven't finished any one of them." "We will before the session is over. Let's go." See, totally factual reassurance. Pc eventually responds to this sort of thing. And you do, you flatten all of them. And you just – end of session – quite standardly on the end of one of my sessions I go back and check everything we have done and see if it's all right, everything's okay, and the pc finally says, "Yeah, what do you know? I can walk on solid ground here," you know? He feels better about the whole thing.

One of the things he's afraid of is of you getting too interested in him. It's one of the things he's afraid of and one of the things he tries to break down.

But his confidence in you, at long last, will build to a point where you can practically get rid of – get away with anything.

You say, "Was that a Code break?" (which is very good). "Is that an Auditor's Code break?" or "ARC break?" Anything you want to say. Needle just as loose, nothing to it. You've just said, "If you please, if you please, let's calm it down now on the subject of your grandmother. Let's just calm it down." And then you say, "Code break?" No, no Code break. You just told him not to talk about somebody, that's a shut communication break if you ever heard of one. You could go that far and you could still get away with it. You got it? So, my message to you is: Be a good auditor, but never at the expense of being disinterested in the case.

Always be interested in that case, and you'll be a far better auditor than you ever dreamed you could be.

Thank you.

AUDITOR INTEREST PAGE 12 20ACC-20 - 08.08.58

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 20ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1958]]