Analysis of Auditor Training in the

Church of Scientology

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 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 have 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 have 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).

HCOB 5.7.1989 says:
„If a student becomes really good on TR 0, he is said to have ‚blinkless TRs‘. To blink however is no Flunk on TR 0 and to be ‚blinkless‘ is no prerequisite. Nobody has a right to put any attention on the fact that somebody is blinking - the question is whether he confronts or not...Fully blinkless, wide open TR 0 and TR 0 bullbaiting with a firm look are no conditions for passing, but every really competent auditor can do it."

A clear-cut violation of HCOB 8th Dec 1974:
„Students try to do an offshoot called ‚blinkless TR0‘. Such a thing doesn’t exist.“

The above text either will give auditors losses or will create the infamous „staring eyes of a Scientologist“.

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 mostly 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 occurring.

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 occurring... quite an expensive pastime 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 not to 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 LRH’s style; he wouldn’t crave 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 as 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!

You can certainly make everybody wrong with this “technology”!

Added: HCOB 13 Aug 87, “Confessionals - kinds of TRs” where it 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 from 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/Ws on the track and the futility 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:

Compared 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 “barriers in rehabilitating releases”. The added things are:

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.

pt. 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, earlier on the time-track, did you take  something similar to kerosine?‘ 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 at first , 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 from this 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 are dealing 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 (Be careful! I know now how to handle the guys with missed withholds!), you can mail to me.


                                                                                                                              November 1998

 Back to top of page                                                  Back to Contents page