Although no auditor of any decency or attainment would believe that a person applying Scientology processes would need number ten, it has happened often enough that auditors have walked off from preclears who were in the midst of long communication lags to make it necessary that this be included in the Auditor’s Code. The auditor’s effort to punish the preclear for not obeying his command is responsible for this. One notable case, a poorly trained person practicing Scientology — you would hardly call him an auditor — became incensed with a psychotic girl he was auditing, got her into the middle of a long communication lag, raged at her, and then walked off from her. It took fifteen hours of extremely good and clever processing on the part of a top- flight auditor to regain the ground lost.

Although no auditor of any decency or attainment would believe that a person applying Scientology processes would need number ten, it has happened often enough that auditors have walked off from preclears who were in the midst of long communication lags to make it necessary that this be included in the Auditor’s Code. The auditor’s effort to punish the preclear for not obeying his command is responsible for this. One notable case, a poorly trained person practicing Scientology — you would hardly call him an auditor — became incensed with a psychotic girl he was auditing, got her into the middle of a long communication lag, raged at her, and then walked off from her. It took fifteen hours of extremely good and clever processing on the part of a top- flight auditor to regain the ground lost.

What must be the level of self-confidence of an auditor who feels that the introduction of misemotion into a session is necessary to express his inability to cope with his preclear?

What must be the level of self-confidence of an auditor who feels that the introduction of misemotion into a session is necessary to express his inability to cope with his preclear?

Numbers 12 and 13 of the Auditor’s Code 1954 are the essential difference between a good auditor and a bad one. If you want to know who is a bad auditor, then discover the auditor who fails to reduce communication lags encountered in the preclear by a repetition of the same question or process. This auditor is expressing his own inability to persist, and is expressing as well his own inability to duplicate, and he is more under the control of the preclear than the preclear is under his control. An auditor not only has to understand communication lag, he must reduce every communication lag brought into being by a question or a process before going on to a new question or a new process.

Numbers 12 and 13 of the Auditor’s Code 1954 are the essential difference between a good auditor and a bad one. If you want to know who is a bad auditor, then discover the auditor who fails to reduce communication lags encountered in the preclear by a repetition of the same question or process. This auditor is expressing his own inability to persist, and is expressing as well his own inability to duplicate, and he is more under the control of the preclear than the preclear is under his control. An auditor not only has to understand communication lag, he must reduce every communication lag brought into being by a question or a process before going on to a new question or a new process.

Here is the other way you tell a bad auditor. A person whose case is in poor condition will express his state by changing every time the preclear changes. Here is the auditor being the effect of the preclear. The preclear changes his condition, changes his communication lag, changes his ideas, and if, between auditor and preclear, he is actually cause, the auditor will then change the question or change the process. You watch some auditor auditing who is ordinarily not reputed to get results, and you will find out that in the course of an hour he is likely to use ten or twelve different processes. Each time some change occurs in the preclear, instead of pursuing it and reducing the communication lag on the process the auditor promptly changes. He excuses this to himself by saying some other process is needed or necessary.

Here is the other way you tell a bad auditor. A person whose case is in poor condition will express his state by changing every time the preclear changes. Here is the auditor being the effect of the preclear. The preclear changes his condition, changes his communication lag, changes his ideas, and if, between auditor and preclear, he is actually cause, the auditor will then change the question or change the process. You watch some auditor auditing who is ordinarily not reputed to get results, and you will find out that in the course of an hour he is likely to use ten or twelve different processes. Each time some change occurs in the preclear, instead of pursuing it and reducing the communication lag on the process the auditor promptly changes. He excuses this to himself by saying some other process is needed or necessary.

It so happens that the process which brings about a change will probably bring about further change. There is an auditing maxim concerning this: “The process which turns on a condition will turn it off.” This is true within limits, but it is true enough to drive home the fact that a person should use a process as long as it produces change. This can also be true of an auditing question. An auditing question should be used as long as it continues to produce change. But if one has used a question or process for some little time — in the case of a straight wire question five or eight minutes, in the case of Opening Procedures two or three hours — with no real change in the preclear, it is time to change the process. If the auditor does not change a good process, the process will then produce a change in the preclear.

It so happens that the process which brings about a change will probably bring about further change. There is an auditing maxim concerning this: “The process which turns on a condition will turn it off.” This is true within limits, but it is true enough to drive home the fact that a person should use a process as long as it produces change. This can also be true of an auditing question. An auditing question should be used as long as it continues to produce change. But if one has used a question or process for some little time — in the case of a straight wire question five or eight minutes, in the case of Opening Procedures two or three hours — with no real change in the preclear, it is time to change the process. If the auditor does not change a good process, the process will then produce a change in the preclear.

A bad auditor will use a process until it turns on a somatic, will then change to another process, will run it until it turns on another somatic, and then change it, and so on until he has thoroughly bogged a case. In spotting spots to get rid of old auditing in preclears who have been audited between 1950 and 1954, the plaint is often heard from the preclear, “Oh, if only just one engram had been run a second time, or if one secondary had been run again, or if any auditor had said ‘go through that again’ how wonderful it would have been.”

A bad auditor will use a process until it turns on a somatic, will then change to another process, will run it until it turns on another somatic, and then change it, and so on until he has thoroughly bogged a case. In spotting spots to get rid of old auditing in preclears who have been audited between 1950 and 1954, the plaint is often heard from the preclear, “Oh, if only just one engram had been run a second time, or if one secondary had been run again, or if any auditor had said ‘go through that again’ how wonderful it would have been.”

It was the inability of the auditor to repeat the process of erasure which prevented Dianetics from being all we would ever have needed. The inability of the auditor to duplicate is mirrored in the fact that he cannot duplicate over and over the same question or the same process. This also comes into view in another way. An auditor who is unable to duplicate must always give the given and standard process with his own slight twist. He is given an auditing phrase, but he finds that he cannot use it unless he gives it a small curve. This auditor is worried about his own thinkingness and is using other thinkingness as his randomity. You can always tell a good auditor. He uses and abides by 12 and 13 of this Code.

It was the inability of the auditor to repeat the process of erasure which prevented Dianetics from being all we would ever have needed. The inability of the auditor to duplicate is mirrored in the fact that he cannot duplicate over and over the same question or the same process. This also comes into view in another way. An auditor who is unable to duplicate must always give the given and standard process with his own slight twist. He is given an auditing phrase, but he finds that he cannot use it unless he gives it a small curve. This auditor is worried about his own thinkingness and is using other thinkingness as his randomity. You can always tell a good auditor. He uses and abides by 12 and 13 of this Code.

An auditor who is unwilling to grant beingness to those around him will find himself unable to run a process which is effectively producing a change for the better in the preclear. This auditor will try to discover all manner of processes which reduce the status of the preclear. Whatever rationale he uses to explain this, he will not use an effective process if he is himself unwilling to grant beingness or life to the preclear. Thus we get two sharp divisions amongst auditors: those who are using the preclear as an opponent in a game, and those who are using the preclear as though the preclear was something being created by the auditor. The latter state of mind will produce remarkable results, the earlier will produce chaos. An auditor who needs preclears in order to have a fight would probably also beat children or small dogs — not big dogs, small dogs.

An auditor who is unwilling to grant beingness to those around him will find himself unable to run a process which is effectively producing a change for the better in the preclear. This auditor will try to discover all manner of processes which reduce the status of the preclear. Whatever rationale he uses to explain this, he will not use an effective process if he is himself unwilling to grant beingness or life to the preclear. Thus we get two sharp divisions amongst auditors: those who are using the preclear as an opponent in a game, and those who are using the preclear as though the preclear was something being created by the auditor. The latter state of mind will produce remarkable results, the earlier will produce chaos. An auditor who needs preclears in order to have a fight would probably also beat children or small dogs — not big dogs, small dogs.

Auditors in general have considerable contempt for those who mix Scientology with some other practice or who use Scientology, change it around, and out of position or cowardice call it something else. Auditors do not like this because they almost invariably, one or another of them, will inherit at least some of the preclears of people who disobey this line of the Code. There follows then an auditor’s effort to unscramble a case which has had its spine adjusted while running engrams or which has discovered an incident only to have discovered immediately after that it has tremendous mystic significance or psychoanalytic bearing. An auditor who mixes Scientology or miscalls it has never learned Scientology. If he knew Scientology he would not feel it necessary to do something else, for Scientology is nothing if not extremely effective — certainly more effective than any other existing practice today.

Auditors in general have considerable contempt for those who mix Scientology with some other practice or who use Scientology, change it around, and out of position or cowardice call it something else. Auditors do not like this because they almost invariably, one or another of them, will inherit at least some of the preclears of people who disobey this line of the Code. There follows then an auditor’s effort to unscramble a case which has had its spine adjusted while running engrams or which has discovered an incident only to have discovered immediately after that it has tremendous mystic significance or psychoanalytic bearing. An auditor who mixes Scientology or miscalls it has never learned Scientology. If he knew Scientology he would not feel it necessary to do something else, for Scientology is nothing if not extremely effective — certainly more effective than any other existing practice today.

Sometimes auditors encounter people who “really use Scientology, but because of the acceptance level of the public” mix it with something else. The public has no difficulty and has never had any real difficulty in accepting or using Scientology under that name practiced according to its own procedures. In a particular instance, an auditor who prescribes diets or who does other things of a material nature additive to the practices of Scientology immediately divorces himself from the protection of the HASI and is subject to action by the CECS.*Committee of Examinations, Certifications and Services.

Sometimes auditors encounter people who “really use Scientology, but because of the acceptance level of the public” mix it with something else. The public has no difficulty and has never had any real difficulty in accepting or using Scientology under that name practiced according to its own procedures. In a particular instance, an auditor who prescribes diets or who does other things of a material nature additive to the practices of Scientology immediately divorces himself from the protection of the HASI and is subject to action by the CECS.*Committee of Examinations, Certifications and Services.

An auditor who has to mix Scientology to make it work didn’t know Scientology in the first place and so wasn’t really an auditor anyway.

An auditor who has to mix Scientology to make it work didn’t know Scientology in the first place and so wasn’t really an auditor anyway.

This is the Auditor’s Code of 1954. It supersedes any earlier Codes. It has been developed by the CECS as its standard of practice, and latterly was adopted by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for use in the field of Dianetics. It is the official Auditor’s Code.

This is the Auditor’s Code of 1954. It supersedes any earlier Codes. It has been developed by the CECS as its standard of practice, and latterly was adopted by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for use in the field of Dianetics. It is the official Auditor’s Code.

It is required of students under training that they know this Code by heart, know what it means, and as they process, practice it. It is one thing to know it — another thing to practice it. A good auditor does both. It is not something to be read, agreed with and forgotten. Following it means success in cases. Neglecting any part of it means failures. It combines the arduously won experiences collected during four years from the practices of three thousand auditors.

It is required of students under training that they know this Code by heart, know what it means, and as they process, practice it. It is one thing to know it — another thing to practice it. A good auditor does both. It is not something to be read, agreed with and forgotten. Following it means success in cases. Neglecting any part of it means failures. It combines the arduously won experiences collected during four years from the practices of three thousand auditors.

We want successes.

We want successes.