Dianetics 55! 1955 Chapter 5
Chapter 5: The Auditor's Code
There are several codes in Scientology and Dianetics. The only one that has to be obeyed if we wish to obtain results upon a preclear is The Auditor’s Code, 1954. In the first book, „Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health,“ we had an Auditor’s Code which was derived more or less from an ideal rather than from practical experience. In the ensuing years a great deal of auditing has been done and a great many errors have been made by auditors. And when we have taken the common denominator of what has caused preclears to make small or negative progress, we discover that these can be codified so as to inform the auditor who wishes to get results what to avoid in his processing.
When a psychoanalyst or psychologist uses Dianetics he is very prone to be operating in his own frame of conduct. It is the conduct of the practitioner almost as much as the processes which makes Dianetics work. In psychoanalysis, for instance, we discover that the basic failure of Freud’s work in practice and as used by analysts failed chiefly because of two things done by the analyst in a consultation room. Whatever the value of Freud’s libido theory, the effectiveness was reduced by the analyst’s evaluation for the patient. The patient is not allowed to work out his own problem, or to come to his own conclusions. He is given ready-made interpretations. In psychology there is no operating code, for clinical psychology is not much practiced and is, indeed, outlawed in many states. While psychiatry might have a modus operandi, none of those conversant with this handling of the insane – the function of psychiatry – would call it a code intended to induce a better state of beingness in a patient.
In education, which is in itself a therapy, we discover an almost total absence of codified conduct beyond that laid down by school boards to regulate the social attitude of, and restrain possible cruelty in educators. Although education is very widespread, and indeed is the practice best accepted by this society for the betterment of individuals, it yet lacks any tightly agreed-upon method or conduct-codification for the relaying of data to the student. Custom has dictated a certain politeness on the part of the professor, or teacher. It is generally believed to be necessary to examine with rigor and thoroughness. Students are not supposed to whisper or chew gum, but education in general has no code designed to oil the flow of data from the rostrum to the student bench. On the contrary, a great many students would declare that any existing code was designed to stop any flow whatever.
Dianetics is in an interesting position in that it is itself, and although people may try to classify it with mental therapy, it is closer to the level of education so far as the society itself is concerned. Its goal is the improvement of the mind on a self-determined basis, and its intended use is upon individuals and groups. Because it is an accumulation of data which is apparently the agreed-upon factors from which existence is constructed, and although the simple perusal of this data very often frees an individual, it is also disseminated on an individual and group basis directly to individuals and groups, and is a form of self-recognition.
If you were to make the best progress along any highway you would do well to follow the signs. In this Auditor’s Code of 1954 we have a number of sign-posts, and if their directions are pursued a maximum of result will result. If they are not pursued, one is liable to find the preclear over in the ditch in need of a tow-truck in the form of a better auditor. Quite in addition to the command of the processes themselves, the difference between the Book Auditor and the professional Auditor lies in the observance of this code. A very great deal of time is invested in the auditor at Academies of Scientology in demonstrating to him the effects of disobedience of this code and obedience of it, and in leading him to practice it closely. This supervision in the Academies is relatively simple. One takes a look at the class and finds somebody who is not in good shape. One discovers who audited him, and one then knows what auditor is not following the Auditor’s Code. The offending student is then taken aside and briefed once more. A graduating auditor has to know this code by heart, and more importantly has to be able to practice it with the same unconscious ease as a pilot flies a plane.
THE AUDITOR’S CODE, 1954
- Do not evaluate for the preclear.
- Do not invalidate or correct the preclear’s data.
- Use the processes which improve the preclear’s case.
- Keep all appointments once made.
- Do not process a preclear after 10.00 p.m.
- Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed.
- Do not permit a frequent change of auditors.
- Do not sympathize with the preclear.
- Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision.
- Never walk off from a preclear during a session.
- Never get angry with a preclear.
- Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued 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 process of Dianetics with these of various other practices.
- Maintain two-way communication with the preclear.*
This is actually The Auditor’s Code, 1954, Amended, since it has one additional clause from the original release of this code – number 16: „Maintain two-way communication with the preclear.“
If one were to sort out these provisos he would discover that all of them were important, but that three of them were more vitally concerned with processing than the others, and that these three, if overlooked, would inevitably and always result in case failure. These three are the differences between a good auditor and a bad auditor. They are numbers 12, 13 and 16.*
In 12 we discover that the auditor should reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process. Almost every case failure contains some of this. The difference between a professional Auditor and a Book Auditor is most visible in this and the other two provisos mentioned. A good auditor would understand what a
In number 13: „Always continue a process as long as it produces change, and no longer,“ we find the greatest frailty on the part of auditors. An auditor who is not in good condition or who is not well trained will „Q and A“ with the preclear. When the preclear starts to change, the auditor will change the process. (By „Q and A“ we mean that the answer to the question is the question, and we indicate a duplication.) Here we find an auditor possibly so much under the command of the preclear, rather than the reverse, that the auditor simply duplicates obsessively what the preclear is doing. The preclear starts to change, therefore the auditor changes. A process should be run as long as it produces change. If the preclear is changing that is what the auditor wants. If the auditor were to stop and change off to some other process just because the preclear has shown some change, we have discovered some very sick preclears. Additionally, an auditor is liable to continue a process long after it has stopped producing change. He and the preclear get into a sort of a marathon, a machine-motivated grind, on Opening Procedure by Duplication, which probably after ten hours produced no further alteration in the preclear. Yet this pair might go to 50 hours with the process and would be quite disheartened to discover that for 40 hours nothing had happened. This, however, is much less harmful as an action than just changing a process simply because it is producing change.
The maintenance of two-way communication is the most touchy activity of auditing. An auditor being the auditor and concentrating upon control of the preclear, all too often forgets to listen when the preclear speaks. Many an auditor is so intent upon the process that when it produces a change which the preclear thinks he should advise upon, the auditor ignores him. Ignoring the preclear at a time when he wishes to impart some vital information generally sends the preclear directly into apathy. At the same time, an auditor should not permit the preclear to keep on talking forever, as in the case of a lady recently reported who talked to the auditor for three days and three nights. The therapeutic value of this was zero, for the auditor was listening to a machine, not to a preclear. One should understand rather thoroughly the difference between an obsessive, or compulsive communication line and an actual communication. Listening to circuits* of course validates circuits. The auditor should pay attention to the rational, the usual, the agreed-upon, and should leave very much alone the bizarre, the freaky, the compulsive and the obsessive manifestations of the preclear. The maintenance of two-way communication is actually a process in itself, and is the first and most basic process of Dianetics, and continues on through all the remaining processes.
Simply because we have pin-pointed three of these there is no reason to ignore the others. Every time there has been a „psychotic break“ by reason of or during auditing, it has occurred when the preclear was improperly fed, when the preclear had had a frequent change of auditors, and when the two-way communication had not been maintained. The effort on the part of the preclear to impart a vital change to the auditor was ignored. All these „psychotic breaks“ were repaired, but because these factors were present the patching up was rather difficult. Audit them early, audit them bright, listen to what they have to say about what’s happening, make sure they are eating regularly, and change auditors on a preclear as seldom as possible, and no „psychotic breaks“ will occur.
If you are simply investigating Dianetics to discover whether or not it is workable, you should be aware of the fact that the Auditor’s Code, following of, is an essential function of Dianetics. Dianetics functions very poorly in the absence of the Auditor’s Code. It is part of the process, not simply a polite way to go about handling people. Thus, if Dianetics is tested in the absence of The Auditor’s Code, do not pretend that it has been tested at all.
Another phrase might have been added to this code, but it would be more germane to living than to auditing, and that phrase would be: „Maintain silence around unconscious or semi-conscious people.“ The reason for this is contained in „Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health“ and in preventive Dianetics. Such statements become „engramic.“ The addition of this to the Auditor’s Code, however, is not practical, as an auditor often finds himself talking to a „groggy“ preclear. Because the auditor is reducing every communication lag he encounters by a repetition of the question, the asking of a question or giving of a command to a semi-conscious preclear is thus rendered relatively unaberrative, for sooner or later the question imbedded in the unconsciousness will work loose and the communication lag will not flatten until this occurs. Thus, simply the reduction of the communication lag in itself eradicates such phrases. Thus, this is not part of the Auditor’s Code. However, when we encounter unconsciousness or semi-consciousness, as in moments immediately after the injury of a child, a street accident, an operation, we maintain silence when we are not auditing a person. Mothers and fathers would spare themselves a great deal of later mental unrest on a child’s part if they knew and would follow this injunction, and in many other ways it is a very important one. A man can be killed by too much conversation around him while he is injured. No matter how deeply unconscious he may appear to be, something is always registering. The questioning by the police at the scene of an accident, where the person being questioned is in a state of shock, or where other accident victims are present, is probably the most aberrative conduct in this society. The questioning by police is quite restimulative in any event, and many severe complications after accidents have been traced immediately to this activity on the part of the police. It might be very important for some ledger somewhere to know exactly who caused this. It is more important that the people involved in it live and be happy afterward. It is not that we do not like police. This is not the case. We simply believe that the police should be civilized, too.
Simply memorizing this code is not enough. Memorizing it in order to practice it is indicated, but it is the practice of this code which is important. Observance of it is the hallmark of a good auditor, and it signalizes the recovery of the case.
If an auditor is going to raise the ability of the preclear, his ability in the field of auditing must be considerable. That ability begins with the understanding and observance of the Auditor’s Code, 1954, Amended.
* This code (replaced in 1968) was extended to include:
17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditors own personal profit.
18. Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and do not process another imagined case.
19. Do not explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined. communication lag is—the length of time intervening between the asking of a question and the receiving of a direct answer to that question, regardless of what takes place in the interval—and he would be very careful to use only those processes on a preclear which the preclear could reasonably answer up to, and he would be quite certain not to walk off from a communication lag into which the session had entered. A bad auditor would believe, when he had struck a communication lag, that he had simply found a blind alley, and would hastily change to some other question.