The primary difference between a competent and effective auditor and a rote automaton is that the competent auditor has his attention on the preclear rather than on the next step of the procedure he hopes to execute.
There are literally hundreds of processes an auditor might employ at any given moment, if he fully understands what is happening in the preclear’s universe and is trained to use them.
If the auditor has been trained to believe that there is only one way to audit this preclear because the C/S says so, this auditor will eventually run into one of the many “non-standard” preclears and will end up frustrated with himself and with the C/S.
Ron Hubbard did his best to reduce auditing to a rote procedure and David Miscavige has carried that to an unworkable extreme with GAT, the “Golden Age of Tech”. You can discuss this forever, but if the church auditing procedure worked as Ron hoped it would, there would not be the vast number of failed cases messing up the field.
When auditing works, miracles occur. I have seen this time after time. I have also seen over the course of 36 years, too many cases where the auditing delivered did not handle what the pcs needed and wanted handled and the pc eventually wandered off the lines.
If you listen to the tapes of Ron auditing, you will notice that he certainly felt free to improvise as the session progressed. Lots of the refinements were not in place yet and he did things that we now know were evaluative but you can hear that he was very observant about what was happening in the preclear’s universe and he did his best to address what was bothering the preclear.
The church auditor of today is given instructions what he is to do in session and if it is found to be unworkable, he can end the session and ask for another C/S instruction. From personal experience in the HGCs of several advanced organizations, I know that the auditor’s observations are given short shrift and he is sent to cramming until he does it the way the C/S thinks it should be done. I have battled with C/Ses for many years to make sure that the preclear got what was needed and I generally succeeded, but I felt that this was an unnecessary burden on the auditor and the pc.
In my independent practice, I have refined my approach so that the C/S is only a guideline and the session deals with what the preclear wants to handle that day. If the Preclear is being run on a process, it is run to the correct end phenomena, but we handle anything and everything that comes up in that session. Every read is handled to a floating needle and very good indicators.
I consider myself responsible for the conduct and the outcome of every session. By staying in close communication with the preclear, and responding when the Preclear originates, I find that corrections lists are rarely needed. The preclear is willing to tell me what he wants to handle if I only give him the opportunity.
For example, if a preclear originates that he has been denied the chance to originate that he is Clear, it can be a life changing action to clean that up and rehabilitate the state right when the origination is made. The interposition of a lengthy review action in unecessary and is invalidative, especially when the Clear Certainty Rundown or DCSI is incorrecetly and rotely run as is the usual case.
Attempting to enforce a standard handling on a preclear is frustrating to the auditor and harmful to the preclear, as preclears do not come in standard sizes or abilities.
I will cover some of the more interesting variations in future posts.
These are some of the original comments: