Analysis of Auditor Training in the Church of  Scientology

November 1998

SHSBC-Tape 18.Sep.63, Service Facsimile

"If you had a broad sphere of knowledge which was true, and these were all high  generalities and everybody would agree with them, frankly it woud be very easy to bankrupt  and upset that whole operation by taking it, and by false relay - you see, bad instruction  and bad relay of the material, and dropping out a datum here and a vital datum there, and  substituting something or other - you eventually could then again effect a sort of a  slavery out of that information."

Recently I went through the Academy 0-IV course packs of  1987 together with an auditor who had been trained on them in the CoS Germany and left it  to join the Ron’s Org. I wanted to find out if there were any omissions and  alterations that made a re-training necessary. I compared the whole with the packs of  1981/82. I expected to find something, but the final outcome was really amazing, both as  to the degree of changes and as to the obviousness of the intention behind them. I  considered this analysis important enough to make it available to a broader public,  especially interesting for those who have had auditor training in the CoS after 1982 or  who currently are under training. If you have doubts about the technical correctness of  what you were or are taught, here comes the (sad) answer.

I only listed the most flagrant points, those which are  important for the workability of the tech and which show the intention behind the  alterations most clearly. In my comments I tried to give as precise references as possible  for those who want to check my conclusions.

Note: the work was done with the German packs, thus quotes  are translated and may not be fully identical with the English wording.



Level 0:

In the basic auditing materials no relevant changes were made. However, I  got the info (not verified) that in the "newly edited" tape lectures some  deletions were made (sentences, paragraphs).


One relevant change  occurs in the amendment to HCOB 15 Jul 78RA (rev 10 Mar 84), Scientology C/S-1, where the  definition of "Clear" now reads: "A Clear is somebody who doesn’t have  his own reactive mind anymore." There is also a text that says that you either attain  the state of Clear on NED or on the Clearing Course.

The basic definition  "somebody who is willingly cause over mental matter, energy, space and time on the  first dynamic" is deleted. To my mind the new definition (which stems from HCOB 14  Dec 1981) is technically correct, but a non-Clear that goes Clear will realize this more  easily with the above definition. Additionally if you go Clear on Objectives (ref. HCOB 24  Sep 78R IV, rev. 2 Oct 80, "The state of Clear" - confidential), Grades (ref.  HCOB 1 Dec 78, pt. 2) or the Happiness Rundown (ref. HRD-Series 4, HCOB 24.3.81) or find  out you are Natural (ref. HCOB 2 May 79 I) or Past Life Clear (ref. DCSI-Assessment list,  HCOB 2 May 79 II, pt. 28) - you probably invalidate it yourself because "it cannot be  so". Or if you don’t, the C/S or the auditor will do it. Result: Clear is harder  to achieve and real Clears can get invalidated easily.

HCOB 6 Jun 84 III,  "Handling of Missed Withholds": If on handling of a missed withholds in Ruds or  Sec-Checking PC gets an F/N before the point when the auditor asks "who nearly found  it out" and "what did he do", the auditor nevertheless should ask these  questions to "widen the F/N considerably" and "really make the MWH  disappear"

The purpose of Ruds  is a key-out of the lock and an F/N VGIs. Nothing more. (Ref.: HCOB 11 Aug 78 I,  "Ruds, Definitions and Patter") The "new" MWH-handling is an overrun.  The best you can achieve with it is that the pc goes release again. The MWH will  not "disappear" as this is not a basic incident and you are not erasing, but  keying out on Ruds and in a Sec-Check or Confessional.

This is a major point. This handling of MWHs has a tendency of making the  pc wrong. We will see a lot more about that subject on Level 2!

Level 1:

This level survived mainly unaltered. The only thing which came to my  attention was the deletion of the BTB 24 Oct 71R I, "Op Pro by Dup - EPs", where  it says that on an attempt to audit Op Pro by Dup to exteriorisation on a PC whose Grade 2  is out you can sweat for 50 hours without changes occuring.

I don’t know,  but if this datum is left out, there may be some pcs who get audited on Op Pro by Dup for  50 hours without any changes occuring... quite an expensive pass-time if you do it within  the CoS.

Level 2:

Added: HCOB 8 Jun 84, "Cleaning Justifications". The HCOB tells  the Auditor who pulls an overt or withhold (in doing Ruds or in Sec-checking) to ask the  pc as part of the procedure "did you justify it?" and "how else did you  justify it?"

HCOB 10 Jul 64 (also  in the pack!) states that you don’t use Justifications before Grade IV. It  explains this by the gradient approach: "There is no reason to expect any great pc  responsibility for his or her own overts below Level IV and the auditor seeking to make  the pc feel or take responsibility for overts is just pushing the pc down. The pc will  resent being made feel guilty. Indeed the auditor may only achieve that, not case gain.  And the pc will ARC break." Thanks to LRH I don’t need to comment myself.

Added: HCOB 11 Apr  82, "Sec-checking implants". Apart from a slight re-definition of implant (if  parents tell their child to not speak, this is an implant!) here comes a major alteration:  the "still needle". Because of the "withhold character" of implants it  may happen that in session you come into an area of time-track where "nothing reads  on the meter...the needle is just very still and doesn’t react anymore...sometimes  the auditor has to work like mad to get the needle responding." It gives an  instruction how the auditor by "guessing and searching around opens the way",  e.g. using questions like "Did you ever go to a psychiatrist or psychologist?".  The HCOB ends with the comment "Not bad, eh? You’re welcome!" - to my mind  absolutely untypical of LRHs style; he wouldn’t crave for acknowledgement like that.

The HCOB is amended by HCOB 13 Apr 82, "Still needle and  Confessionals" where it says, "The still needle which doesn’t react on  things where it should react is an indicator of withholds." This HCOB is also written  in a style which is - to my mind - not typical for LRH: "Good to know that, hm?"

Now this is a really  great tool in "handling" a pc. If you have a read on an overt or withhold-type  question, he has an overt (or withhold). If you don’t have a read, it may be a  "still needle" and the pc still has an overt! You just have to pull and tease  until you get it!! This of course ignores completely the datum that the needle will react  only on things that are real to the pc, and if there is no read, it may be that there is  something in the bank, but not accessible to the pc. It is "below the awareness level  of the pc". (Ref.: HCOB 29 Apr 69) So what will happen if you "handle" the  no-read situation like described in "Sec-Checking implants"? Your pc will invent  answers, key-in on the whole track without being able to confront and as-is, and - worst -  key-in on stuff of the OT levels, especially OT 3, which will give him a nice bunch of  wrong items!

Anyway, you can make everybody  wrong with this "technology".

Added: HCOB 13 Aug  87, "Confessionals- kinds of TRs" where is stated that the auditor uses 2 types  of TRs in confessionals, one - less abrupt and choppy, warmer - is for taking up the  answers of the pc. If the pc finds an answer to an O/W question, the auditor "should  change from the role of an ‚inquisitor‘ to the role of a ‚father  confessor‘". The other type of TR (like an inquisitor) is used in asking  Sec-check-questions.

This throws a light  on the beingness that is expected of an auditor doing a confessional: more rough, not so  warm, like an "inquisitor"! Everybody who has read HCOB 12 Jul 64, "More  about O/W", knows that one may not use a process that make the pc feel guilty. I also  recommend reading HCOB 23 May 1971R VIII "Recognition of the Rightness of the  being". Also all the data on basic auditing etc. should teach one about ARC in  auditing!

HCOB 30 Nov 78,  "Confessional Procedure", was revised (10 Nov 87) to include the aforementioned  things. Also data from the HCOB 13 Dec 61, "Varying sec-check questions" was  included; the statement there is, that if you get into an impasse in repeating a sec check  question you should vary it. In the HCOB 30 Nov 78R this is changed to "vary the  question only if you will come to an impasse by repeating the question".

The data of HCOB 13  Dec 61 was cancelled by the original HCOB 30 Nov 78 (anyway it lost its meaning when the  earlier/similar technology was found in the 60s and was applied to sec-check questions,  too), where it states in pt. 11 (still to be found as pt. 14 in the very same, revised  HCOB), "Some people you have to ask the exact question. If your question is  even faintly off they F/N." And in pt. 15: "Take the original reading question  to F/N. Not some other question." (Also still there as pt. 19)

So, if the pc doesn’t have answers, you don’t check false read  or protest, you don’t check MWH or ARC-break as in the original confessional tech -  you are still allowed to do that, but: you also may vary the question and "fish"  for answers. Now this comes under the heading of Q&A, jumping chains etc. and of  course, again, you end up with the pc being guilty in any case.

Same HCOB, new pt.  16a): If a question doesn’t read and doesn’t F/N, use buttons; added: amongst  the buttons to use: careful of and protest - if it reads, bring the button in and take up  the confessional question.

Protest is a  right-hand button (ref. Tech Dic), i.e. it causes a thing to read which wouldn’t read  otherwise. Therefore you handle protest E/S to F/N and then you can check if there is  really a read on the question. But a read on "protest" doesn’t equal a read  on the question!

Result: pcs with a protest have  withholds... Really, under a confessional like that I would have lots of protests.

This is still not all  about this HCOB... added section "Restimulate the withhold": "Withholds are  not really in sight and have to be keyed in. The art of sec-checking is to restimulate the  material that has to be taken up and then to take it up...As an auditor you are there to  get through to the pc and to restimulate any possible withhold about the subject which  exists."

In a later paragraph there is an  example where the pc says as an answer to a confessional question, "I just don’t  know." The auditor should say, "Well, let’s look at it. Come on, let’s  dig it out a little more. There must be fragments of it visible somewhere."

Now what is the  technical EP for a confessional question? It’s F/N VGIs. (Ref. HCOB 30 Nov 78) Not a  cognition. That means simply key-out. Why would you restim something just for the sake of  keying it out again? This is a wrong purpose for an auditor! The auditor should be there  to get the pc gains, not to find withholds on his track! Remember what LRH said about the  number of O/W on the track and the vanity of trying to find all of them? (Ref.: various of  the tape lectures of Level 2)

The quoted  recommended auditor comm is of course a bunch of comm cycle additives (ref HCO PL 1 Jul  65) and evaluations (ref Tech Dic).

Result: endless sec-checking, finding a lot of withholds, pc  feels guilty and like a thetan who has an immense amount of withholds.

Level 3:

Relative to the above, there are just some minor things.

HCOB 19 Dec 1980R, revised 16 Nov 87,  "Rehab-Tech", contains now some new information about "barreers in  rehabilitating releases". There is added:


pt. 2. PC had no  release in the first place - so it cannot be rehabbed.

This although you got  a valid read and already found the exact point of release! Instead of using the other  tools (e.g. out ruds - the text about handling of out ruds is shortened in the revised  issue!) to rehab the pc, the auditor may be tempted to give it up and go back to the  overrun process.

3. if it just  doesn’t rehab you can ask for "something earlier on the time track which  resembles the subject or action. Example: Auditor: ‚now, did you take earlier on the  time-track something similar to cerosine?‘ PC: ‚Oh, yes, yes. I just remembered  that in the old times we took boop-di-woop.‘ F/N."

This is at least  doubtful. If you understand the mechanism of overrun and the idea of rehab as described in  this HCOB, you see that this is not an earlier-similar activity. The pc went release in  the first place without going on the time-track. Why should it be necessary to direct his  attention to it now? I’d think this is a Q&A.

HCOB 15 Oct 73 was  revised further to be HCOB 15 Oct 73RC, rev. 26 Jul 86, C/S-Series 87RC, "Nulling and  F/Ning prepared lists". The section about "rabbit buttons" was deleted  entirely. This contained the info that an auditor shouldn’t ask "Is this list  unnecessary?" in an attempt to rabbit from the action of doing the list.

I have no idea why  this was deleted. It is just a little piece of lost tech.

Also deleted: the BTB  20 Aug 70R "Two totally different things - assessment and listing and nulling",  replaced by HCOB 7 Oct 68 "Assessment"

The HCOB contains  less information. The BTB showed very well how to list and null, when and how to extend a  list etc. which information now is missing. Of course this was "only a BTB" thus  "not source" and had to be deleted... while other BTBs (e.g. the admin  bulletins) are replaced by "HCOBs" dating from 1987, having the same contents  and pretending to be written by LRH. Can’t they at least be consistent in their  schizophrenia?

Level IV:

There are some minor changes, e.g. deletions from the material to be  studied by the PC on PTS-C/S-1. More interesting is the re-introduction of the  "disconnection policy" for PTS persons in HCO PL 20 Oct 81R cancelling HCO PL 15  Nov 68. The added HCOB 10 Sep 83 "PTSness and disconnection" is devoted only to  that subject and states that in a case of a PTS connected in present time with a  suppressive person the PTS person won’t achieve anything by trying to  "handle" the other person. "The answer is to disconnect".


While this seems  harmless in the first moment, it gives an effective tool to persuade "PTS"  persons to disconnect from parents, relatives, even spouses who dared to criticize the  ways of the church of scientology. Apart from that the PTS should as per the  "old" tech, see the now cancelled HCO PL 15 Nov 68, try to improve his relations  towards the other person anyway and thus reducing the antagonism towards his person.

Added: HCOB 21 May  85, "Two kinds of PTSness". It states that besides real PTSness there is  pretended PTSness which covers or justifies black PR and evil intentions. This is shown if  the PTS says he is PTS to a person with good intentions, "e.g. a staff member or a  Scn VIP. This is nearly fully conclusive evidence that you deal with a person with evil  intentions."

Here is the final  handling for a person who detects the real bad guys in the management. Except you  don’t accept all the above and want to tell me that David Miscavige is a good boy.

That’s it. I think you can judge for yourself. If you  have questions, suggestions or critique (Careful! I know now how to handle the guys with  missed withholds!) you can mail to me.


NavRight NavUp