Sanctity of auditing
By Leanne M.
Auditing only works to the degree that two way communication exists, and to the degree that it is safe for a preclear or preOT to speak his or her mind.
When the auditing door closes and you hear the words “This is the session”, the person holding the cans should have certainty that they can be honest and can communicate anything, about anything, without reprisal or punishment. Heck — that is the only way that a person can a) get rudiments in so that case gain can occur and b) can gain understanding and as-isness on things they are running into and having trouble with.
But is this actually practiced and applied in auditing in the Church of Scientology today?
Recently I was auditing a former staff member, who had never really received much auditing on staff, but the auditing they had received had not gone well. Observing out-tech and off-policy situations, this staff member felt helpless to do anything about the situation in the org due to the heavy pressure and duress from the group on anyone who dared say they did not agree. If he mentioned any upset, disagreement or contrary view to what the group was perpetuating, then he would find themselves KRed and interrogated by the Ethics Officer. And if he mentioned or gave specifics in a session, the information would make its way to his seniors, and the same would occur.
Another person I was auditing (a former Sea Org member) had a heavy grief charge on earlier auditing and how unsafe it had been to actually say what was occurring in their org, and how they felt about it. The auditing room was not a safe haven and was instead a constant tippy-toeing around the actual issue and trying to find answers that would be “acceptable” by the auditor. Finding the correct item on a PTS Rundown became a real problem. In this case the actual item was David Miscavige, and this Sea Org member had worked in and around this executive for some years, however they could not name him as the item, as any person that comes up with any negative comments, views or opinions on David Miscavige (and naming him as an SP comes high on the list) is immediately reported to his office, and heads literally, roll.
And I have personal experience, and spoken to many others on SOLO NOTs, where the 6 month (sec) checks are actually just a way of finding out if the person has been looking on the internet, commenting on non-church blogs, or has an views that they feel are “disaffected” or contrary to management.
It is sad that the one tool that we have in Scientology to Clear man — auditing — has been twisted and perverted to be a system to control and alert management to persons who are not “with the program” or “CI to COB”.
It is sad that the meter, a wonderful tool to locate charge within the bank or case, is routinely used to intimidate and interrogate individuals on their own personal ethics and views, to keep them in check and under control.
Based on pure definitions — the above is not Scientology, as Scientology requires two-way honest communication and is solely for the purpose of lifting people up, assisting them to understand, and increasing their own abilities across the dynamics.
Luckily there is sanctity of auditing outside of the Church of Scientology. In fact — it is the ONE place where you can say your piece, ease your mind, unload your upset, and communicate your views with NO reprisal. The job of the auditor is to clean up that reading question on the rudiments or on the correction list, to a point where it is gone and relief is experienced.
And the acknowledgement you get is “Your needle is floating”.
And it is.
It is really important that we re-create that safe space for auditing to take place, and put LRH back into Scientology.
It is the only way that Bridge progress can be achieved.
“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
“1. Do not evaluate for the preclear.
“2. Do not invalidate or correct the preclear’s data.
“3. Use the processes which improve the preclear’s case.
“4. Keep all appointments once made.
“5. Do not process a preclear after 10.00 p.m.
“6. Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed.
“7. Do not permit a frequent change of auditors.
“8. Do not sympathize with the preclear.
“9. Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision.
“10. Never walk off from a preclear during a session.
“11. Never get angry with a preclear.
“12. Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process.
“13. Always continue a process as long as it produces change, and no longer.
“14. Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear.
“15. Never mix the process of Dianetics with these of various other practices.
“16. 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
* 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.
… ” 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.” LRH Dianetics 55!