6108C30 SHSpec-47 Auditing Quality If you pass up any reading rudiment and try to go on with the session, when the PC has his attention on something else, even if it is not-ised, you will set up trouble in session. You'll get ARC breaks stemming from the PTP. It may not be a PTP stemming from the environment. Sessions can be PTP's. Also, asking for PTP's can restimulate one that had been dormant until looked for. So rudiments can be dangerous ground. If the PC's PTP is the session, he has already postulated that he can't have a session, otherwise he'd just relax about it and not have the PTP. He's got such a scarcity of auditing that he has to get the most session he can in that unit of time. He presses at it; gives himself more commands; substitutes a process he can do for one he can't In all this, the PC is just trying to make a session out of it. This creates a PTP for the PC. New pcs especially have a scarcity of any treatment because they've had so much ineffective treatment. They feel no treatment is being offered anywhere, so they get a can't have on treatment. This gets carried over into auditing; it produces a scarcity. The PC will demand auditing and won't have it when he gets it. This all stems from the PTP of scarcity of treatment. Handle it with any PTP process, once you get the PC to see that he has it, using innuendo to get him to cognite that auditing is scarce. Use something like, "What auditing sessions have you been unable to confront?" or "When has there been no auditing?" or "What unknown in an auditing session would you want to escape from?" This would cure the phenomenon. The PC who has continual PTP's has obviously not told you anything about his PTP, because those things that are known are not aberrative. So if he says, "I know what's wrong with me: it's my mother," you can write it off. Those things that are half-known can still make trouble from the unknown half, so the second the PC says, "I know all about it," that does not necessarily mean he's recovered from it, if he found out about it in auditing. It may not be fully known. Never believe a PC, except on goals and terminals. To the PC, auditing is handling of his fixed attention on the track. So you needn't quail at getting in a rudiment if that's where the PC's attention is fixed. You do have to find the root of it, the thing he's really stuck on. Auditing is what the PC considers frees up his attention. So ask enough questions to find out what he's doing and where his attention is. If the auditor sits there running the process and doesn't know what's happening with the PC, he has a big not-know on the session. The PC can also not-know what the auditor is doing. He can feel he's got a withhold because the auditor never asks what's going on. You can ask pertinent questions in any number. Get very certain on what he's doing, how, what he's looking at, etc., etc.. It keeps the PC's attention on his case to keep asking about it. It also keeps his comm in, and it gives you a chance to guide him into doing the command the way you want him to. A PC who goes anaten has suffered a drop in havingness. His primary havingness is havingness of an auditor. So, if he's gone anaten, he's lost the auditor. You could ask, "When is the first time you lost the auditor?" If you don't give him back an auditor, he'll continue to go anaten. The PC with the most anaten has the least auditor. The things that cause him to lose the auditor could be what the auditor does (e.g. an error), or just the PC hitting some incidents and losing the auditor. The PC starts going anaten, and the PC is alone. That's all. Find out where he is; he's doing a retreat. Anaten and boil-off on the part of the PC indicate that, from the point of view of the PC, the auditor isn't there. If you find out where the PC's attention is, you free it which is the goal of auditing. If you are interested in the PC's case, it helps hip to be interested in it. You can just sit back and give the command and never find out what the PC is doing, and it will work. But compared to what happens if you really do a Cook's tour of the bank, getting the PC to tell you what's going on all the time, it's an inferior type of auditing. If you don't do it that way, the PC will hit the thing and bounce, hit and bounce, leaving a bit stuck here and there. The PC will eventually come out fine. It just takes longer. The reason LRH hasn't insisted on auditors doing it this way is that they can be so knuckleheaded about it. They dc some escape mechanism by asking a dumb question. As long as an auditor experiences impulses, no matter how obscure, to rescue the PC from the dangers of the bank by pulling him away from it, it's not safe to have him asking questions. That's the bug in back of it. The bank is as it is because of the confusion and randomity in it. If you don't keep the PC confronting the randomity, he won't clear up, that's all. That's the source of the 5:1 ratio in length of time needed to produce an auditing result between others and LRH. Ron has no allergy to action, but has no must-have on it either. You don't audit the quiet points of the track. Although a scarcity of action is what is wrong with the PC, we have to ask, "How did this scarcity of action occur?" It occurred because of the unpalatability of action. Stillness is preferred because it keeps you from getting hurt. You may find the PC complaining of the boredom of life. If you suggest, "Let's go join the Marines!", the PC will say. "Well, no." Action has become discreditable. Society at this time has the opinion that action is a bad idea, at least as represented in literature. Why should this be? If a PC is so starved for action, you would think that the scarcity of action just stemmed from his situation in life. But how did he get himself in that situation? The faster you get him over the idea of the discreditable nature of action, the sooner you'll get him unstuck from the quiet areas of his track. The blood and guts are there, a moment before and after. It's fascinating to find out what PC's think pictures should be, too. They may have weird ideas about what they should have, all backed up with the discreditability of action. You can direct the PC's attention by asking him questions; as long as your questions do not yank his attention off the subject on which it is operating, he'll get into no trouble at all. Finding out what he's doing, what he's looking at, etc, is beneficial. And whenever it seems he's just escaped, find out about what is unknown about what he just left, [Cog: This would also be the mechanism of blows on misunderstoods: a person cannot confront the unknown.] or if there's anything else in that. Keep putting his attention back on the thing he bounced out of. Don't do this forcefully, but use pointed questions. Eventually the whole thing is sorted out and he's not stuck on it by all the effort to escape and the mystery and the unconfronted action. Furthermore, he knows he's getting auditing because he gets his attention freed from the spot where it was stuck. He winds up with action not being discreditable and being able to have it.