From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Wed Mar 17 14:20:02 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.he.net!news.lava.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 17 Mar 1999 21:20:02 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 6/35 SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT 9TH ACC
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to
	<squirrel-admin@echelon.alias.net>. The message sender's identity
	is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.
Message-ID: <33cbd8706a7c8f8a078b5c25b03e5522@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1137
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690338 alt.clearing.technology:76236

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 6/35

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet
are allowed to have their old testament regardless of any
Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************


9TH ACC CONTENTS

December 1954 to January 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Based on the solution to entrappment cassette version.

F# = File number (** = not available)
O# = Original Number (according to the master list posted by Pilot)
REN = As renumbered in the Solution to Entrappment cassettes

F# O#  REN  DATE  TITLE

01  1   1  Dec  6 Introduction to 9th ACC: Havingness
02  2   2  Dec  7 The Essence of Auditing, Know to Mystery Scale
03  3   3  Dec  8 Rundown on Six Basics
04  4   4  Dec  9 Communication Formula
05  5   5  Dec 10 The Practice of Dianetics and Scientology
06  6   6  Dec 13 Conduct of the Auditor
07  7   7  Dec 14 Mechanics of Communication
08  8   8  Dec 15 Havingness
09  9   9  Dec 16 Pan-determinism and One-way Flows
10  9A 10  Dec 17 Hist. & Dev. of Processes: Games & Limitations in Games
11  9B 10A Dec 17 History and Development of Processes: Q&A Period
12 10  11  Dec 20 Games (Fighting)
13 11  12  Dec 21 Anatomy of Games -- Part I
14 11A 12A Dec 21 Anatomy of Games -- Part II
15 12  13  Dec 22 One-way Flows in Processing
16 12A 13A Dec 22 One-way Flows in Processing: Question and Answer Period
17 13  14  Dec 23 Havingness and Communication Formulas
** 13A --  Dec 23 After Lecture Comments   
18 14  15  Dec 24 Pan-determinism
19 14A 15A Dec 24 Pan-determinism: Question and Answer Period
20 15  16  Dec 27 Training New People
** 15A --  Dec 27 Curiosa from Dianetics 55!
21 16  17  Jan  3 Auditing Requirements, Differences
22 16A 18  Jan  4 Time
** 16AA -  Jan  4 Q&A Period
23 17  19  Jan  5 Auditing at Optimum
24 18  20  Jan  6 Exteriorization
25 19  21  Jan  7 Elementary Material: Know to Mystery Scale
26 20  22  Jan 10 Education: Goals in Society -- Adult Education
27 21  23  Jan 11 Fundamentals of Auditing
** 21A --  Jan 11 Auditors' Conference
28 22  24  Jan 12 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part I
29 23  25  Jan 13 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part II
30 24  26  Jan 14 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part III
31 25  27  Jan 17 Auditing Demonstration: Six Basics in Action
** 25A --  Jan 17 Auditors' Conference
32 26  28  Jan 18 Auditing Demonstration: Spotting Spots
** 26A --  Jan 18 Auditors' Conference
33 27  29  Jan 19 Auditing Demonstration: Exteriorization
34 28  30  Jan 20 Background Music to Living
35 29  31  Jan 21 Axioms: Laws of Consideration -- What an Axiom Is

Note that 6 of the 9 discussion periods (Q&A periods, Auditors'
Conferences, etc.) were omitted from the cassettes, leaving us
with only 35 files instead of the 41 that were recorded.  It is
also possible that material was edited out of the lectures which
are available.  If anyone has a set of the original reels, please
post any missing material.

========================

9ACC file 6/35

9th ACC - CONDUCT OF THE AUDITOR

Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 
9ACC06 541213 
6th of 35 talks to students on the 9th Advanced
Clinical Course given in Phoenix, Arizona between December
6, 1954 and January 21, 1955

CONDUCT OF THE AUDITOR

A lecture given on 13 December 1954


We haven't covered, in the last unit that you all went
through, several points. The points that we haven't covered
are very easy to cover, however, and these appertain unto,
mainly, conduct of the auditor.

Why, there's hardly any one of you present who would dream
that his conduct in the auditing chair could be better.
That's obvious. And I would be the last one to state that
my conduct in the auditing chair was the ne plus ultra, but
it's better than yours.

Now, an analysis of an auditor's conduct exists in the
Auditor's Code 1954. It's a very, very good thing to make
people aware of this Auditor's Code 1954. Every time we
have found a preclear getting into, you know, bad
condition - he's suddenly in bad condition or something like
that - we trace back over everything that happened there,
everything the auditor did and the condition the preclear
was in, and we always find several factors of the Auditor's
Code had been violated.

Just one all by itself apparently will not completely dish
a preclear. But two, three, something like that, all
happening at the same time and you're liable to have a
spinner on your hands.

It's just as vital as this. And this is all under the
subject of auditor conduct.

The Auditor's Code is auditor conduct. But part of that
code is preclear condition, and it's actually sort of a
misconduct on the part of the auditor not to look over the
condition of the preclear, see, before he audits. So
there's a couple of steps in there that refer to preclear
condition.

One is sleep, but this is covered today in "Don't do
auditing past ten." And the other one is food. Now, it's
very rare that an auditor actually asks the preclear, "Have
you eaten lately" or "What have you eaten these days?"
Mostly because, you see, that's a little bit of a social
breech - it actually, in social intercourse, it's really none
of our business whether this fellow is starving to death or
not. It's not an ordinary, routine question.

Let's say that you're auditing a neurotic, and if you omit
to ask that question, you're liable to get halfway through
8-C or something like that and just have this guy spin.
Now, the E-Meter, of course, is something we don't use anymore.

An E-Meter registers the behavior of energy. So it will
register the behavior of a stimulus-response mechanism
such as the reactive mind.

But we're not interested in those significances or
particularities. However, the E-Meter can be used, if you
have one, in a very peculiar fashion.

You ask the preclear - you tune up the electrodes - you know, 
I mean, the hand grip - so that he's registering, and then you
ask him to draw a deep breath and expel it. And you will
watch the needle - on almost any E-Meter - you will watch the
needle dive. The needle will dive. And if it doesn't come
back right away, or if it doesn't dive - ya-ayh, the basal
metabolism of the preclear is shot.

Now, you would be amazed how many people basal metabolism
is shot in. And you, actually - that just simply means the
oxygen-carbon burning rate of the body - you would be amazed
what would happen in a morning session if you don't eat
breakfast. You don't eat breakfast, and if you were to make
this basal metabolism test on one of these E-Meters around
here - . And by the way, I put an E-Meter around here for the
use of these units which has a beep meter on it. I want you
to see that beep meter manifestation. It's a real good
thing to observe. You pick that up. Make sure we go through
that.

It's an incredible thing that one human being can monitor
energy in another human being.

But also at the same time show them this basal metabolism thing.

You don't eat breakfast. And you know you won't register on
a basal metabolism. It'll go twitch. And a psycho goes
that way all the time-twitch. He does that all the time.
But you don't eat breakfast, and here it is nine, ten
o'clock, something like that, and your basal metabolism is
shot.

Now, we could, but don't have to, draw the inference in
between these that a person should not be audited when his
basal metabolism is in such bad shape. Now, we can infer
this just because a psycho and a person who hasn't eaten
have the same meter readings. But if this was - if this was
all, why, we would skip it. We would skip it. We wouldn't
pay any more further attention to it. Just because that
happens to coordinate is no reason why it would upset
auditing.

But there's another factor. We have learned that when basal
metabolism won't register, when the fellow's just
practically got zero, auditing doesn't seem to do him a bit
of good. Isn't this peculiar? And we checked that test
after test.

In one of the units where we were taking some tests on
this, we had the interesting experience of having the three
cases that didn't make any progress to amount to anything
in that unit - not traceable to auditing but traceable to the
fact that these people didn't eat. You see, here's what
happens. The body, lacking proper fuel, will start chewing
on facsimiles. And the awareness of awareness unit puts out
a little bit of energy, and the body goes cheeooow. And it
isn't that food will ever make anybody sane. It won't, not
even vaguely. But absence of it to a body that is
accustomed to it will bring about a greediness for
facsimiles, which an auditor would have to work a long time
to overcome.

However, there is a process that could be run even on this
person, and that's Remedy of Havingness. Now, something
very weird; I've never made this experiment so as to be any
kind of a conclusive experiment, but in just two cases that
I tried it on, very cursorily, no breakfast was eaten and
we got a BMR test, you see, and then found out that was
barely a tick. Then we remedied havingness on these
preclears like mad, and we got a BMR reading. This is very
fascinating.

Well, I can't say that's conclusive because I didn't carry
forward what I would dignify as a series such as ten or
fifteen tests. I did a medical series of two tests.

But it just indicates as something there that you should,
in the first place, discover what your preclear is eating.
Now, let's say you're working for HASI, and you're getting
preclears that you don't have any former cognizance of; you
know, you're just - all of a sudden you're handed a preclear.

You start auditing this person. This person might be from a
long way away - we used to discover this in the old
Foundations - be from a long way away, and had invested quite
a bit of money in auditing, you see, and travel expenses
and that sort of thing, and aimed to get by that week on a
few cups of coffee and some sandwiches. Won't make any
progress. Won't make any case progress. It's really aside
from the fact that every time this happened and we had
trouble with the preclear - the preclear started to spin or
something of this sort - we traced it immediately to no eating.

Now, the other coordinating factor that goes along with
this is the fact that a psycho won't eat. The main trouble
with them is they won't eat.

The psychiatrist - oh, I had a psychiatric clown one time who
rushed up to me when I walked in the sanitarium, he says,
"You know that patient you put in here" - I didn't put any
patient in there, some girl's husband had put her in - he
says, "I'll have to give her an electric shock, I have to
give her an electric shock, I have to give her an electric
shock," you know, standard psychiatric parlance.

And I said, "Why, what's the matter?"

"She's not eating. She's not eating."

"Well, what's electric shock got to do with it? Will that
make her eat?"

"No, but she's not eating. Well, she'll starve to death."

And I said, "Well, if you give her electric shock, will she
then eat?"

"That hasn't anything to do with it."

We had quite an argument. I remember this point very
vividly. I was running - running a process on a preclear the
other day and this blew as a lock of "no answers."

But the psychiatrist will try to give people electric
shocks or do something weird and peculiar every time your
patient stops eating. They see this as one of the big
signs. They have at least learned to note this "no eating"
as a very poor manifestation on the part of the psychotic.
So can we note it as a poor manifestation on the part of
the preclear. Whether the preclear's psychotic or not, the
failure to eat will affect auditing.

If you do have somebody who doesn't seem to be able to eat,
and if you are very conversant with all the processes we
have, you would know that you could, probably, just run
something like 8-C, which actually does do a Remedy of
Havingness, and get them back to eating, or if it was very
desperate indeed, you actually could waste food, you know,
Expanded GITA on food, and bring them up to a point of
where they could eat.

But I remember that it is a manifestation of mental
imbalance - this "no eat." Now, your preclear who merely
skips breakfast, may be under the pressure of having
stayed up late, you see, and so on. Just normal course of
human existence. He actually doesn't recognize that he is
in poor shape. If he had to run down the street, for
instance, to catch a bus or something like that, he'd find
his breath very short, and when he got on the bus, he would
start to worry. You get how this works out, see.

I mean, the guy doesn't eat breakfast because he's in a
hurry or something, and he rushes to catch his bus-a lot
of physical exertion, you know - gets on the bus and he
starts to worry. The old mock-up starts to pull in these
facsimiles, see - slurp, slurp, slurp, slurp. And the next
thing you know, worry-worry-worry-worry-worry-worry-worry-worry 
- don't go to work. Now, reversely, then, he will get it on this 
way: He'll get a stimulus-response mechanism - when he starts to
worry, he can't eat. He'll also get it on the basis of when
he starts to worry, he has to eat.

We've got a preclear down in Texas that is on compulsive or
obsessive eating. He calls it "this horrible gluttony." He
is just eating, eating, eating, eating, eating, eating,
eating. Well, I don't know, he seems to have worked out
some kind of a mechanism there, you see, so that, why, if
he eats enough, then he won't pull in any more facsimiles
on himselt and so it won't hurt. That's what it adds up to.

But this individual - let's just say he's routine, physical,
mental condition, average sort of guy - just by failure to
eat breakfast will discover him worrying.

Now, I ran into a series of seven ulcer cases that were - oh,
they were having a terrible time. This was a series, a good
series. I plotted out all the factors that were in common
in this person - these people's lives. And the factor most
in common was "row at the breakfast table." This was
definitely in common in these things. Upset condition in
the home and so forth. There's another factor in common:
Ten, ten-thirty, eleven o'clock on the job, these people
were doing an awful lot of fussing, 1.5ing and worrying.
See, it's just a stimulus-response proposition. Their home
was antipathetic, too, and they didn't do any eating in it.
And this constant and consistent no-eat, of course,
eventually pulled in something like AAs and other factors
and old gunshot wounds, and the next thing you know, they
had holes in their stomach.

What is the exact mechanism here. The individual doesn't
eat, the particular area that protests the most is the
stomach. We find the stomach, and other organisms, pulling
in facsimiles, you see. And of course, on a
stimulus-response basis, they would get those things which
most closely agreed with the area.

Fellow has been shot in the stomach and he's hungry, why,
the thing to do - the thing to do is to pull in the gunshot
facsimile and eat it up - actually eat it up. The situation
is very simple to see. This has a lot to do with auditing,
and that is one little point in the Auditor's Code which an
auditor might not pay very much attention to mostly because
it isn't on a stimulus-response basis.

The other things in the Auditor's Code that are of definite
interest to people of your experience is this business of
running every comm lag flat. That's now part of the
Auditor's Code because it's definitely detrimental not to
do so.

We used to say this in another way: Don't give a second
command before the first command is followed. Now, that's a
shadow of this, isn't it? Tell the fellow to walk over to
the wall and he keeps sitting there. So you say, "Well,
touch the floor," see. Well, he didn't execute the first
command and we gave him a second command and you will find
him in a fine state of confusion.

Well, look at this as another phase of this same thing:
Keep giving him the command "Touch the wall," until he does
it with ease and alacrity.

Now, this interposes on you, and you'll want to know, and
students will want to know from you, what are the limits of
alibi here. Because there are questions that you can ask
which will produce 150 hours of communication lag. There
definitely are questions you can ask.

One such question is "Where would a fat man be safe?" which
was asked of a fellow one time, and gee whiz. Talk about a
comm lag. It just took him forever before he finally got in
there and made himself a reply.

All right, there's a point of jurisprudence here, then.
Supposing your auditor does ask such a question, and this
produces such a lag. Well, what's the auditor do? Well,
number one, he shouldn't have asked the question, but
having asked it, he's sunk. And this you must convince a
new student of. That he-having asked the question, he's
sunk. That is, if he's getting a terrific communication lag
on this question, that's just too bad, that's all. He did
it. Let's make sure first, however, that it's an answerable
question. But let's say he made an answerable question and
he got a communication lag, and he was only auditing this
boy two hours anyhow. And the whole two hours goes by with
that comm lag.

Well, the auditor did it, so actually it is up to the
auditor to track that case and keep in touch with the case.
You know, in a general sort of a way. Call him up in the
evening and ask him if he's got the answer to it. Call him
up in the morning and ask him if he's got the answer to it,
and so forth, until he all of a sudden gives you the answer
to the question. It actually isn't vital that you ask the
question a second time. If he can answer it once, you'll
find out that the major upset will come off of it. He will
experience quite a relief.

But of course, a real good auditor would then ask it again,
wouldn't he? So we can just find this question which you
asked this fellow - you said, "Where would a fat man be
safe," and 75 hours later you checked with him, you know,
he answers it. He finally answers it and he says, "At the
meat packing plant." This isn't even sequitur, but it's
perfectly logical to him for some reason or other. That's
where he'd be safe. It is up to you again, really, if you
were really doing a good job of auditing, the second he
answered it to ask him the same question again.

I can just see you now 4 or 5 months from now still calling
this fellow up occasionally to find out what the next
answer was. Because the next comm lag is probably going to
be - if the first one was 75 hours - the next one is probably
going to be 30 or 40, if not 150.

So it tells you the liabilities of Straightwire and 8-D.
That's 8-D, "Where are things safe." It tells you the
liability of these things on people who haven't had a
considerable amount of Two-way Communication and little
stuff. You'd run into such a case, by the way - "Something
you wouldn't mind remembering. Something you wouldn't mind
forgetting" - you would run into an awful lag.

But, by the way, this is not necessarily true. There are
others - probably a long sequence of questions that - I could
probably sit down and remember some of these questions that
produces awful communication lag in almost anybody.
Anything that strikes straight at a woman's identity as a
woman, you see, would be that mass of complication, you see.

I asked a woman one time just in - oh, we were going along
just swimmingly. We were evidently doing fine with ARC
Straightwire; we were just getting along splendidly. And I
asked her, I said, 'All right, now" - I don't know what was
wrong with me; I must have been doped off or something - I
asked her that question. Now, I was asking her what other
things are this and that and so forth, and I said, "And
what are women used for?"

And you'd - I'd never expected to find a lag - and maybe on
another preclear I'd never get the same lag again - but boy,
we got ourselves a communication lag. One of these
100-hour communication lags. And it was just up as far as
the session was concerned.

Well, in view of this fact that you have to smash a
communication lag flat and flatten it and so forth, then it
rather tells you that you shouldn't adventure too deeply
into the deep significances on Straightwire on preclears
that you're going to see shortly and seldom.

It tells you that you ought to stay in there with processes
which will readily get a case into fairly good condition,
like 8-C or Opening Procedure by Duplication. If you've got
a couple of hours, by the way, you can run Opening
Procedure by Duplication and get its first comm lag off of
it, but if you try to run it for a half an hour - there's no
- there's no sense in running it for a half an hour - you
won't even - you won't even show up a comm lag. The guy could
usually do it for a half an hour. At 40 minutes, 50
minutes, something like that, he starts to show the
strain, and the next thing you know the social machinery
goes crunch and the gear box tears out, and it makes it
about a 2-hour process just to get a comm lag.

So we have another manifestation here. The individual can
do a process and has tolerance for a process for a certain
length of time, and then it's going to show up into a comm
lag. But this is - this is again just comm lag. It's nothing
else.

And if you were to run Opening Procedure by Duplication
for - you're going to run this fellow for 2 hours, see - you
run Opening Procedure by Duplication for 1 hour and 45
minutes. And oh, he just went along with well-oiled wheels,
no squeak - nothing, everything going fine. And in 1 hour and
45 minutes he hits his first comm lag - crunch! It's going
to take another hour, isn't it? Anyway, and so there you've
shot your auditing schedule all to the devil.

Well, usually when people go crunch on Opening Procedure by
Duplication, they really haven't had enough 8-C. That's
the way it works out normally. So it looks to me like the
only safe process that you could run when you weren't going
to get your hands on a preclear again right away would be
8-C. And that's pretty close to true. It's the only safe
process. But of course, the preclear will go crunch on 8-C,
but they don't go crunch as badly, and they snap out of it
more quickly. 8-C - you get comm lag off of something in 8-C
usually in a very few minutes.

So, selection of the process here has a lot to do with
whether or not one can follow the Auditor's Code there, all
right?

So this here imposes judgment on the auditor. Well, don't
ever let a student walk into it blind thinking he could
just audit anything at random, you know, and get away with
it, because you can't audit anything at random and get away
with it.

You take some preclear that you're going to be in contact
with and you're going to be giving a 30-hour intensive to
or something like that - sure, you can leave him in a comm
lag. Sure. Sure, you can leave him in a comm lag. End of
the session came and they were still comm lagging on the
session; you only had it vaguely flat. And you gave him
some 8-C to bring him on up to present time and so
forth - you know where your error would be? In not starting
the next session with that question. And there's where
changes of auditors are very bad, is when this condition
occurs, and then you change auditors and the next auditor
doesn't know this, you really just wind the preclear up on
the track very neatly - very, very neatly.

You gave him a session. At the end of the session he was
still comm lagging, but you had to wind it up because of
the end of the session. And then Joe Jinx gets hold of him
the next morning and runs a little bit of 8-C and starts on
some other entirely distinct process.

And then we find out that this person - this is what's wrong,
really, with change of auditors - then we find out that
this person has suffered at the point of auditor change.

Well, the real intimate mechanism of suffering at the point
of auditor change is not simply the changes of
personalities involved. It is that the last auditor did not
clean up, and the new auditor didn't inquire and finish up.

So that part of the Auditor's Code becomes relatively easy
to get around if we do keep in mind that all you have to do
is ask the preclear what was being run. But remember, this
is a variety of Straightwire, and you'll get comm lags on
that too - "What was being run?" And you'll finally plow up
what was happening by the other auditor. And then carry on
that other auditor's process only long enough to take out
the remaining comm lag that was in it. Now, that would be
the only trick on changing auditors. So there's something
to know about changing auditors isn't there, right straight
out of the Auditor's Code.

You get a preclear who has just been audited. The thing to
do is give him a little Straightwire on his last auditor
until you actually do show up what was occurring. The only
thing that can go wrong with this is that the preclear
occasionally is an obsessive liar and will give you the
weirdest kind of a story you ever heard of. Well, now let's
take process lag. That is the next point on the Auditor's
Code which is of tremendous importance - process lag.

How long does it take to run a process flat? Now, let's say
that we can run an auditing question flat by repetition,
repetition, repetition, repetition, and get that
communication lag so it's not too long. But what about the
whole process? Now, this one question probably belongs to a
whole process. Well, that would be like running 8-C flat.
Only the way that is stated in the Auditor's Code is "Run
a process as long as it produces change and no longer."

Well, how long does it take to discover whether or not a
process produces change. Well, actually, you might be able
to find it out in a hurry. But you won't find it out in a
hurry with Opening Procedure by Duplication. And very often
you won't find it out about Opening Procedure of 8-C. This
is a curiosity here. You can run Opening Procedure by
Duplication for an hour with producing no change, and then
an hour and 15 minutes and you start producing more
changes than you can readily handle.

Same way with 8-C. I've seen people go through 8-C just
like little wound up soldiers. Just, oh, wonderful, just
walking around. Evidently what's happening is the auditor
must be moving every muscle in their body. Then all of a
sudden the fellow starts to wake up and say, "You know,
somebody is walking this body around this room."

So, on 8-C and Opening Procedure by Duplication, we would
have to keep our weather eye out.

Now, if we were very experienced, however, do you know that
it is not true that it is not detectable. It is detectable.
You can detect it. It's mainly experience permits you to do
that. You see this fellow going on in a lackluster,
machine-process type of process. You just watch this
happening, and you know what's going to happen. Sooner or
later he's going to wake up. And you can detect this, in
other words.

I ordinarily can detect it simply when I start talking to
the preclear. I simply categorize it as oh-oh. And one of
these things will sneak up.

Well, we get to the other side of this picture. You know,
you can run a process - I can't but - that's a funny one.
That's true - I can't - I can't run a process on and on and 
on and on without continuing to produce change of one kind or
another, see. But I've had this reported to me and I have
observed this, so I have to include it in this little talk
I'm giving you on the Auditor's Code.

And that is that a process is often run by an auditor much
longer than it produces change in the preclear. Now, once
more, this is something I have picked up by looking, not by
experiencing. I can always make Opening - this isn't because
I'm a good auditor. I am, but it isn't because I'm just
trying to hold myself up here as an example; it's just the
only example I happen to have on this score. We look this
over and I can always do something to the preclear to make
a process produce change. I can put more two-way
communication into the process. When - I work it slightly
different - to spare saying exactly how this is. When the
preclear stops changing, I start putting more two-way
communication into the process. And he starts changing again.

Well, I suppose just discussing it here, the answer really
is there in front of your face. The auditor and the
preclear get together and they start running the same
two-way communication, the process itself will go flat.

But when a process goes flat and it isn't producing change
and the communication lag is perfectly good and it is
shifting, why, in the Auditor's Code it says you go on to
another process.

Now, we had a boy here that I turned over to a couple of
auditors who should have known better. And this fellow was
fed some 40 hours of Opening Procedure by Duplication. But
he was permitted to do it on a sort of a grind basis - "If I
had somehow or another get through this, I will then be
able to get on to something more, and it obviously will do
it." No, the only person that'll do it there is the
preclear, not the process.

And these two boys produced their maximum change with
Opening Procedure by Duplication at the end of 15 hours.
They did Opening Procedure by Duplication 15 hours, and at
that time, the preclear was in very, very stable condition
with regard to duplication. And then they went on and they
did it, for God sakes, for another 25 hours with no change
whatever in the preclear.

Well, I traced this over and I found out one of the reasons
why no further change occurred in the preclear: There had
been an Auditor's Code break at about 6 hours - about 6 hours
deep into Opening Procedure by Duplication - which they never
permitted this preclear to talk out. You know, wouldn't let
him discuss it. Wouldn't listen to this sort of thing. And
it was hung up there.

Well, the sin on their part was to waste all this time. If
they're going on and on and on and on and on - another
process, you see, probably would have found the Auditor's
Code break or it would have done something that would have
shoved the case forward. But there was no sense in -
whatever the conditions or upset had been, we don't care
about that. They could have run Opening Procedure by
Duplication from hour 13 to hour 15 and found no change.
But they should have been smart enough to have detected
that there was no change going to occur furthermore. They
shouldn't even have had to run from 13 to 15 to find out
there was no change. But the process was flat, and yet they
went on 25 hours. So don't let one of your students do that. 

Normally a process, I have found, hangs up and stops
working on a preclear - particularly we're talking now about
the six beefiest processes known to man. We're talking
about these six basic processes. They're pretty beefy. And
if they're done right and produce no change, there's
something wrong someplace - usually with the auditor; we know
with the preclear.

All right. Now, where we get this clause in the Auditor's
Code, then, we re just sort of putting that in over a big
manhole that is open and that everybody can see
anyhow - we're putting a sign, "MANHOLE."

It would be very hard to maintain a two-way communication
with the preclear and do something like Opening Procedure
by Duplication or 8-C, any of its parts, maintaining a
two-way communication with the preclear in whatever
condition, without discovering a change. This would be real
hard to do. But auditors manage this, so it is in the
Auditor's Code. And when you - when you teach this process,
when you teach that part of the Auditor's Code, you will
find that you are into a lot of quibble and argument with
some students. You're into a lot of quibble, a lot of
argument concerning this.

Because they say, "Well, I ran Opening Procedure by
Duplication for 20 minutes, and it didn't produce any
change, so it's against the Auditor's Code to continue the
process. This is something on the order - it takes an hour
for that process to bite.

But here in the Auditor's Code, we find - we find the
condition present that if you want to get real snotty, real
nasty as an Instructor, you can enforce it to the
letter, to the hilt and it will function. In other words,
you can just demand utter, slavish, literal interpretation
and obedience of the code without any further argument and
you'll get into lots less trouble.

See, you just crush. And you will save more of your
students from spinning. You will save them from more bad
auditing just by that. That is the Auditor's Code; there's
no further argument with it. It is a code of morals,
arbitraries. It isn't even based on reason. It's just ideas
that Ron dreamed up one day and there are a couple of other
auditors around that agreed with him, and so therefore he
says the whole field has agreed with him, and that is the
way it is. And the CECS has shot auditors for disobeying a
comma in it. You know, crush.

[Ed. Note: CECS was the Comitte of Examinations, Certifications,
and Services at the time of this lecture]

Where, as a matter of fact, it is not a crush code at all.
It is a code which is itself built upon knowledge hardly
won over many years of auditing experience.

It's not even - it's not, by the way, built on theory. It's
built on arbitrary observation. There's no theory in it
anyplace. It's just that if they don't do this then
preclears spin, so we'll put it in a code that they've got
to do this.

And however, to anyone with experience, this is something
which demonstrates itself by judgment. That doesn't mean
it's any the less effective. But it is demonstrated by
judgment. And an actual interpretation of the code by
judgment is far, far better than just a literal, slavish
following of the code. Understand it. Know what it is about.

Now, let's take this business about process lag. All this
"Don't work a process any longer - ," so forth. Well, if you
know your processes, of course, you know you're going to
work it, you know how long it's going to take for it to
produce a process change, and you've got enough sense not
to run it another 80 hours beyond that time.

We haven't, in running this, ever let up on it
particularly, but an auditor who is trained in this has
just pulled a boo-boo - no, not - I beg your pardon, it's not 
a boo-boo. It was a "My God!" He thought he was doing Mimicry
with a psychotic preclear. The psychotic preclear got mad
at him, so Mimicry immediately dictated that he become
ragingly mad and much madder at the preclear. Well, that's
quite cute, isn't it?

When we find that on the part of an auditor - we practically
murdered the boy. We shot him from guns. He should have
known better than this.

Let me say a word on that. I'll tell you again. Never mimic
the bizarre, the strange or the unusual in a preclear.
Never mimic the bizarre, strange or unusual. Mimic the
average, the expected, the agreed-upon behavior of the
society. And you'll find out that you are appealing to that
last little one-eighth of an erg of power left in the preclear.

And this is agreeing with the awareness of awareness
unit - the - that is, the average conduct, the - so forth. 
And you validate the other by mimicking the bizarre and
strange and unusual, you're just giving force and power to
his entities and his circuits. All right. He got mad at his
preclear. This preclear was spinning so we knew something
was wrong. This preclear hadn't been spinning the day
before, and this preclear was spinning, so the explanation
for one and all seemed to indicate that something bad had
happened here. And we finally got a few cross-examinations
going and we discovered what had happened.

That wasn't all that happened, but that was merely a
flagrant disobedience of the code - very flagrant. You see,
he should have been able to have determined that this was
wrong simply because it is in the Auditor's Code. It says
never get angry with the preclear. Mimicry or no mimicry,
he should have determined that it was wrong simply by that.

Well, all morals codes have their shortcomings. All codes
of morals - there are arbitraries, there are shortcomings.
You find times when it is necessary to get around them and
so forth. And you'll find out, however, in training
students that you leave the door open one-eighth of an inch
on this particular morals code called the Auditor's Code,
and they promptly push it open about 2 feet. And then it's
wide open. There goes all the sanity in the bank. So it's a
good thing to just keep the door shut tight on it. It's
been very closely written to agree with the reality of
auditing. It is the reality of auditing.

Where we have difficulty with a preclear, you can say this
uniformly: If the preclear has had code breaks with
existence - preclear's in trouble, he's not Clear, he's not
exteriorized - he's had code breaks with existence. What code
breaks? Auditor's Code breaks.

If this works so effectively in an auditing session, then
for heaven's sakes let's recognize with great clarity that
these must be fundamental factors which are aberrative in
the society.

If you want a dissertation on Scientology and what happens
on the fourth or third dynamic that aberrates people, just
look at the Auditor's Code. Must be a coordination there.
See, we just say that arbitrarily. We don't inspect it any
further. We learned in 4 years of auditing that all these
things would spin preclears; so therefore we're working on
people who have been spun; so therefore this must be what
the society does. Just like that.

And we could be real, real, real dizzy about this and say,
"Well, the only thing we have in Scientology is the
Auditor's Code. And this explains everything. And all you
have to do is memorize the Auditor's Code and you can let
the Axioms and everything else go. And if you knew the
Auditor's Code, why, then you would know exactly what
aberrative factors existed in the society and exactly what
aberrated people." And you'd probably go on with some very
long dissertation on this subject. Very cute.

Where that code is concerned, this is probably very
truthful. It probably, however - being an arbitrary thing
built solely upon observation and entirely lacking in
theory - it is the most untheory thing, the Auditor's Code
1954, that you ever ran into. There's no theory behind it.
There was no theory utilized in putting it together. Just
observation. That's all. No thought involved. So of course
it isn't organized. And it'd be an interesting experiment
sometime just to teach somebody the Auditor's Code and tell
them this was what was wrong with society. And that you run
these things out of the preclear or remedy them, and you
would then bave a preclear who's in very good shape. Maybe
it's true. Might be true.

But the Auditor's Code came under my perusal here a few
months ago, and I recognized that we had long since been
drifting on that horrible thing, an unwritten code. See, we
knew what was bad and we knew what was good. But it was an
unwritten code, and we didn't have the straight rendition
on this code at all.

So I put together these factors which I'd been keeping
notes on about 2 millimeters to the left, south-southeast
of the medulla oblongata - long notes - and wrote them up. 
And here in writing Dianetics 1955! I suddenly found out that
there was another factor there. There was number 16, that
is, "Maintain a two-way communication with the preclear."

Well, let me say a little bit more about that one
particular factor, maintaining a two-way communication with
the preclear.

The darnedest dissertation on communication you ever saw in
your life is Dianetics 1955! I mean, it just goes on and on
and on; it takes it apart, it stretches it, puts it back
together again and weaves it into new and beautiful mats.
It takes them apart and makes scrap paper. And it pushes it
all together into a solid plastic block and pulls it apart
again. And it's about communication, 1955. It's about
nothing else - communication and time.

Affinity and reality are mentioned with the most incidental
flick of the index finger that you could imagine. The rest
of it, all 50,000 words of it, are devoted to
communication. Now, shows you how important communication
has become.

A couple of the boys the other day got wildly excited. They
just got through watching me audit for the tenth or twelfth
time. And I used to say that there are probably a lot of
things that I do that I don't know I do, you know, that
probably have some bearing upon the case. And I've actually
attempted occasional - occasionally an investigation of
auditors who were getting results and auditors who didn't
get results to find out what factors were present, you see,
in the one that weren't in the other one.

Well, so far this has been an absolutely dead end - I mean,
just a completely dead-end alley. There wasn't anything I
was doing except maybe being friendlier to a person.

And these two guys found something - they found something
which is fascinating. Never noticed auditors didn't do
this. Well, these two boys went out and they immediately
prepped up a couple of staff auditors to do this. And
immediately their cases started to make 7-league boot
strides. It was that important - cases just kind of 
hanging on.

They found out that I acknowledged every action and every
reply of the preclear. I always acknowledged.

Of course, that's just the natural thing you would do. No,
it's not, evidently.

So the preclear walks over and touches the wall and looks
at you, and you say, "Okay, go over and touch the other
wall." I don't audit that way.

He goes over and touches the wall, and he looks at me. And
I say "Okay." "Now go over and touch the other wall." He
does. He looks at me. And I say, "Fine." When I audit a
group, and the group's sitting there and I say, "Okay now?
All right?" and before I start on a new chain of commands,
I give them 4 or 5 "okays" sometimes. "Okay, okay." Wake
them up, you know; wake them out of it. Pry them out of the
process. I'm about to change the processes and I want to
give them plenty of notice without giving them

So what I do is acknowledge what they've been doing, see,
"Okay, okay, okay." Well, I'm not setting myself as a
example. As a matter of fact, the mothers of the town I was
raised in, Helena, Montana, would faint if they ever
recognized that I ever got set up as a model for anything.
I'm sure they would have shot their progeny if they thought
this had been the case.

But in this particular case, there was a missing, a missing
factor, and this factor was acknowledgment. So we put that
in under two-way communication with the preclear. We could
phrase number 16 of the Auditor's Code 1954 which reads,
"Maintain a two-way communication with the preclear" - we
could rephrase it and make it even more sharp by saying,
"An auditor must always acknowledge the action or execution
of the preclear." You got that?

The auditor must always acknowledge completion of an act or
a recognition by a preclear. When a preclear does
something or says something and completes an action, the
auditor must acknowledge.

We find poor preclear is sitting there waiting - if you
please - the preclear is sitting there waiting for the
auditor to okay it. And the auditor doesn't, so the
preclears are being hung up in auditing sessions. They're
hanging in auditing sessions, and that is really the only
reason you ever have to audit out the auditing. This is
amazing, isn't it?

Now, here's one of these little, insignificant, tiny, tiny
factors that went along the line and has been going along
the line quietly and unobserved here for 4 years - 5 years,
really. Just been snoring along. Always done this; never
audited any other way. And Barrett and Steves got their
long noses into this situation just on the outrageous
postulate "He is probably - he is undoubtedly doing something
that other auditors do not do. Now, what is he doing that
other auditors do not do?" They were reading the first book
or something of the sort, and it said this in it.

Remember? Trying to find out what you're doing, so you can
tell somebody else what you're doing. I mean, that's the
big contest. And here 5 years after the fact they find
this, evidently, totally insignificant little point. Well,
it came up, obviously, because they had just had a
tremendous dose of new theory. And that was that the answer
is the more important - the answer is the more important
thing in a communication. The scarcity of answers gets a
guy eventually to a point where he's solving problems. You
see that?

In every language of which I have any cognizance, and I
have no real knowledge of any language, maybe, except
English, but I do have across-the-street, embarrassed wave
at several tongues. And in these answer, solution and reply
are homonymic or synonyms. This is apparently very close in
to the human race at large.

So, there's something germane there to these things.

All a fellow is looking for is answers. That fellow in the
session is looking for answers. Then, theoretically, you
not acknowledging - he goes over and touches the wall, you
see, and then you just tell him to touch another wall - this
poor guy is looking for answers, and doggone it, you didn't
give him one. So he winds up the end of the session scarcer
on answers than he began it.

Well, now this is what we've been auditing uphill against.
Now, that's a horrible thing to realize, isn't it? It's
just auditors. I've been watching auditors, training
auditors. Never mentioned this. Nuts.

All right. Now, let's just look at this and find out that
you can get more darn wins this way than you could count.
You can get a tremendous number of wins this way - tremendous
number.

Now, there are many ways to run answers. But amongst them
is not silence. That's not amongst them. Silence is not
amongst them. A quantity of silence evidently could do
nothing for nobody nohow.

In spite of the 14-day fast they used to tell me about when
I was a kid and which I've experienced - you merely get
lightheaded after a while and kind of goof off. You get so
scarce on answers in that 14 days that you go nuts though
you think you're in fine shape. And you join a monastery
like I did.

Now, what on Earth here - that we could go so long without
hitting this point. Now, here and there, here and there an
auditor has been doing this. And they're your real
sharpies. See? They're the people, people write in and say,
"Gee, I was audited by Joe. Man, I feel fine." They're your
sharpies. So I hate to push sharpies and me and others out
of the "only one" classification here, but actually they
were maintaining a two-way communication with the preclear.
And people who would or could maintain a two-way
communication with the preclear could get results, but
particularly those people that would acknowledge.

The preclear says, "Mmm!" You know, he's going, "Abba-abba,
and my mother would be safe on the moon and my mother would
be safe in the cellar, and my mother would be safe in a
coffin. Vmm!"

And the auditor says, "Well, give me some more places where
your mother would be safe." Rrrr! - wrong clue. "What
happened?" he's supposed to say at that point.

"What's the matter? What happened?"

"Well, the darnedest thing, there's a skeleton came out and
it was carrying a red light and a green light. And it put
on a cop's hat and it said "..." You know, standard one.

Now, the next boo-boo that the auditor could pull there is
after he's told you all this about this skeleton, the red
light and green light and so on, and the auditor listens - he
doesn't listen too long. He distracts the preclear's
attention if this is going to go on forever. But he does
listen to it out because it might make a lot of sense. He
doesn't change the process by reason of listening.

But the next boo-boo that could be pulled is, the
auditor - the preclear having spoken, the auditor then giving
the next auditing command. That's a real boo-boo. The
auditor at least says, "Well, what do you know. Okay. Is it
all right now? All right. Let's find some more places where
your mother would be safe." See?

Two-way communication having been maintained, a sufficiency
of answers is existing in the session so as not to
increase the scarcity of answers on the preclear who is,
basically, simply scarce on answers. And that's that. This
is big stuff.

So that line 16 in the Auditor's Code probably should have
a little subhead on it. It should have that little subhead
and probably be written that way again. Only the book is on
tape; you can't dub any additional phrases into tape. So
part A would be "He must ask for any data this preclear
seems to have suddenly grasped" and part B "He must
acknowledge the preclear's completion of an auditing
command or delivery of data" - verbally, that he has to
acknowledge. So that'd be parts A and B. It was said
someplace or another? Well, it's been completely forgotten.

Well, we've got our Auditor's Code today. And I know it's
very strange for me to be talking to you people about
Auditor's Code particularly, but remember we've got a
brand-new Auditor's Code. And that Auditor's Code is a
compound of experience, conduct in the auditing room.

Now, in a unit of this character, people we have are very
accountable for the Auditor's Code. Extremely accountable.
A lot of arguments, auditor-preclear arguments. You find
the session should have been going on and it's not going on
at all; the auditor and preclear are sitting there arguing
about whether or not an Auditor's Code break has occurred.

Well, that's an Auditor's Code break for the auditor to
argue that an Auditor's Code break has not occurred. That's
the one thing an auditor mustn't do, is engage in a big
argument about the thing. Okay, so a Code break has
occurred. All right. We will do something about it. Fine.
We will continue to run the process. That's what we will do
about the Auditor's Code break. Don't validate those code
breaks, guys. Just don't repeat them. The auditor, he
merely has to say, "Okay, I'll do better next
time," - anything like this - and continue with the process.
And the code break not being validated, you will find
preclears who are motivator hungry will be less and less
anxious to have code breaks pulled on them.

Okay. So much for this here Auditor's Code. We'll see if we
can follow it real closely. Look at it in operation. Maybe
some of you might be interested in finding out whether or
not this is the fourth and third dynamic, and second
dynamic upset that finally winds a fellow up in the first
dynamic. Just Auditor Code breaks on fourth, third and
second dynamics.

Okay.

(end of lecture)





