THE TWO PARTS OF AUDITING - HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R

[auditor]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R
Remimeo
Auditors
Supervisors
Students
Tech & Qual ISSUE II
REVISED 6 DECEMBER 1974


Basic Auditing Series 2R

THE TWO PARTS OF AUDITING

From the LRH Tape 2 July 1964,
“O/W Modernised and Reviewed”

In order to do something for somebody you have to have a communication line to that person.
Communication lines depend upon reality and communication and affinity and where an individual is too demanding the affinity tends to break down slightly.
Processing goes in two stages.
1. To get into communication with that which you are trying to process.
2. Do something for him.
There is many a pc who will go around raving about his auditor, whose auditor has not done anything for the pc. All that has happened is that a tremendous communication line has been established with the pc and this is so novel and so strange to the pc that he then considers that something miraculous has occurred.
Something miraculous has occurred but in this particular instance the auditor has totally neglected why he formed that communication line in the first place. He formed it in the first place to do something for the pc.
He very often mistakes the fact that he has formed a communication line, and the reaction on the pc for his having formed one, with having done something for the pc.
There are two stages.
1. Form a communication line.
2. Do something for the pc.
Those are the two distinct stages. It is something like (I) Walking up to the bus, and (2) Driving off. If you don’t drive off you never go anyplace.
It is a very tricky and no small thing to be able to communicate to a human being who has never been communicated to before. This is quite remarkable, and is such a remarkable feat that it appears to be an end-all of Scientology to some.
But you see that’s just walking up to the bus. Now you have got to go someplace.
Any upset that the individual has is so poised, it is so delicately balanced, that it is difficult to maintain. It is not difficult to get well. It is very hard to remain batty. A fellow has to work at it.
If your communication line is very good and very smooth and if your auditing discipline is perfect so you don’t upset this communication line and if you just made a foray of no more importance than saying something like—What are you doing that’s sensible and why is it sensible?—and kept your communication line up all the while and kept your affinity up with the pc all the while, did it with perfect discipline, you would see more aberration fall to pieces per square inch than you ever thought could exist.
Now that’s what I mean when I say do something for the pc.
You must audit well, get perfect discipline and get your communication cycle in. Don’t ARC Break the pc, let your cycles of action complete.
All of that is simply an entrance. You see, the discipline of Scientology makes it possible to do this, and one of the reasons why other fields of the mind never got anyplace and could never get near anybody was because they couldn’t communicate to anybody.
So that discipline is important.
That is the ladder that goes up to the door and if you can’t get to the door you can’t do anything.
The perfect discipline of which we speak, the perfect communication cycle, the perfect auditor presence, perfect meter reading—all of these things are just to get you in a state where you can do something for somebody.
So when you’re real slow picking up the discipline, real slow picking up keeping in the communication cycle, when you’re pokey on the subject you are still 9 miles from the ball. You’re not even attending yet.
What you want to be able to do is audit perfectly. By that we mean keep in a communication cycle, be able to approach the pc, be able to talk to the pc, and be able to maintain the ARC. Get the pc to give you answers to your questions. Be able to read a meter and get the reactions.
All of those things have to be awfully good because it’s very difficult to get a communication line in to somebody anyway. They all have to be present and they all have to be perfect. If they are all present and they are all perfect, then we can start to process somebody. THEN we can start to process somebody.
I’m giving you an entrance point here of, if all your cycles were perfect, if you were able to sit there and confront the pc and meter that pc and keep your auditing report and do all these multiple various things, and keep a pleasant smile on your face and not chop his communication, well then there is something you do with these things. It takes a process now.
We used to have it all backwards. We used to try and teach people what they could do for somebody. But they could never get in communication with him to do it, so therefore you had failures in processing.
The most elementary procedure would be—’’What do you think is sensible?’’—or anything of that sort. The pc says, “Well, I think horses sleep in beds. That’s sensible. ‘‘ The auditor says, ‘‘Alright Now why is that sensible?’’ The pc says, “Well ... ah .... Hey! . . . That’s not sensible. That’s nuts!” You actually wouldn’t have to do anything more than that He’s cognited. You’ve flattened it. It’s so easy to do, but you keep looking for some magic.
Well, your magic is in getting into communication with the person. The rest is very easy to do, all you have to do is remain in communication with the person while you are doing this, and realize that these huge aberrations he’s got are poised with the most fantastically delicate balance on little pinheads. All you have to do is to phooph and these things crash
Now if you’re not in communication with this person he doesn’t cognite. He takes it as an accusative action. He tries to justify thinking that way. He tries to make himself look good to you and tries to put on a public front of some kind or another. He tries to hold up his status.
Anytime I see a bunch of pcs around who want to jump happily to something else because sane people run on that and crazy people run on something else, and they never have to be run on the crazy one, I right away know their auditors are not in communication with them and that auditing discipline itself has broken down because the pc is trying to justify himself and trying to uphold his own status. So he must be defending himself against the auditor.
The auditor couldn’t possibly be in communication with him.
So we are right back to the fundamental of why didn’t the auditor get into comm with the pc in the first place.
You get into communication with the pc in the first place by doing proper Scientology discipline. That is not any trick. It goes off 1, 2, 3, 4.
You sit down and you start the session and you start handling the pc and his problems and that sort of thing and you DO IT BY COMPLETING YOUR COMMUNICATION CYCLES AND NOT CUTTING HIS COMMUNICATION—THE VERY THINGS YOU ARE TAUGHT IN THE TRs, and you find you are in communication with the person. Now you’ve got to do something for the person.
Unless, having gotten into communication, you do something for the person, you lose your communication line because the R-Factor of why you’re in communication with the pc breaks down. He doesn’t think you’re so good, and you go out of communication with him. That having happened, the person will be in a sort of status defensive and wonder why he is being processed.
On the other hand, if you have done something for the pc and he has had his cognition, and you try and go on and get more TA action out of the fact that “all horses sleep in beds”—you don’t get there as you’ve already flattened the process.
You can over-audit and you can under-audit.
If you don’t notice that one answer come your way, that indicates you have done something for the pc and if you keep him working on that same thing, your TA action will disappear, your pc will get resentful and you’ll lose your communication line.
He’s already had the cognition you see. You are now restimulating the pc. You have gotten your key-out destimulation factor—it has occurred right before your eyes. You have done something for the pc. One more mention of the subject and you’ve had it.
There are a lot of things you could do with the pc, without doing anything for him. You can turn on some very very handsome somatics on a pc at one time or another without turning them off either. You’ve got to do something for the pc, not to him.
Now you can be doing something (A), and the pc is doing (B), and you go on doing (A), while the pc is doing (B) then somewhere on down the line you wind up in a hell of a mess and you wonder what happened.
Well the pc never did what you said so you didn’t do anything for the pc. There was in actual fact no barrier to your willingness to do something for the pc but there must have been a tremendous barrier to your understanding of what was going on.
That you could ask (A), while the pc answered (B), in itself showed the auditor observation was very poor so therefore the auditor wasn‘t in communication with the pc.
So again the communication factor was out and once more we weren’t doing anything for the pc.
It requires of the auditor discipline to keep in his communication line. He has got to stay in communication with his pc. Those cycles have got to be perfect. He can’t be distracting the pc’s attention onto the TA, e.g. “I’m not getting any TA action now.” That’s not staying in communication with the pc—has nothing to do with it. You’re distracting the pc from his own zones and areas.
Don’t put the pc’s attention out of session. Keep him going and keep that communication line in. And the next requirement is to do something productive for the pc using the communication line.



L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:nt:jh