By Lana M.

In the 50’s, Dianetics came at only the cost of the book and the investment of your time to co-audit.

In the 60’s and 70’s, moving up the Bridge came at a cost, however as a co-audit, you could achieve Clear on a decent budget — becoming an auditor and a Clear in the process.

In the 80’s prices started to rise, and they have continued to escalate to a point where the only persons that can access Scientology technology are the elite who can come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars.

To achieve the state of Clear is now well over $50,000 – and this is with no real auditor training to speak of.

How can a Clear stay Clear if they are not fully competent in conquering and handling the reactive mind?

Without knowing how the mind works, they can run into circumstances in time, that cause them to drop back to effect. And what about the reactive minds of others?

An OT is cause over their dynamics, and how can someone achieve this if they cannot deal with the aberrations and bank of others (both individual and groups)?

And how do we raise the tone of individuals, communities, regions and more, if the cost of auditing is so prohibitive as to prevent any auditing from occurring?

The vast majority of Scientologists who have received auditing in the last 15 – 20 years have been audited as professional preclears. This has been pushed heavily by the C of S, despite it not being what LRH stressed as important.  The result is that most people who have gotten onto the OT levels over the same time period have only been Solo auditors, never having audited another.

Scientology is for doing. Scientology is for applying.  Not just to receive — but to apply and help others.

” Co-audits are for use. They spark immediate interest. They quickly bring people up to doingness. There is no better exchange for the auditing one gets than to deliver it to another and that in itself produces gain. They are the fastest, most satisfying method of getting lots of auditing delivered, of making lots of Releases and providing actual auditing experience.

“If you want to turn your org scene into one of a bustling beehive of activity, get your co-audits established and running. It is within the means of any org to do so.” HCOB 20 MAY  1980RA CO-AUDIT DEFINED

Find someone near you who is at the same case level as you — whether a preclear, Clear or OT. Checksheets exist in the field — along with LRH materials.  C/Ses exist. Supervisors exist.

It doesn’t cost the earth. In fact, the cost can be so minimal it will shock you.

What is important is to learn how to use a meter — and maybe we can set up some locations over the coming year where people can go to do their meter drills and become competent and knowing what a read is and how to handle one?  A couple of sups and a word clearer could get a number of people through their training rapidly. If we had some workshops scheduled well in advance in the US, in England, in Canada, in Australia, in France, etc. then people could work out how to attend and have a co-audit twin and meter to do the drills with.

With a C/S, regular worksheets and even video sessions, a co-audit team can do the Bridge. They can help themselves, help another, and have a superb time in the process.

There are way too many people out there who have not moved on The Bridge for way too long. There are also way to many people who never learned to audit, or have been out of the chair for way too long.

Let’s bring back the co-audit!

66 thoughts on “Bring back the co-audit

  1. This is a profoundly good idea. The only issue I have with it is that I’ve seen too many of these co-audit folks do their training on the Levels and then never do an internship; they remain Class IV auditors but uncertified ones. They’ve audited one PC (their co-audit twin) and that’s all. You’ll never know all the types of cases and difficulties you’ll encounter unless you get certified. And in the current day and age, certification does afford you a new avenue of income.

    Not to say that it’s worthless to do things otherwise. A simple co-audit where you audit up to Clear (or thereabouts) is always worthwhile. But I would encourage the members of a co-audit team to go forward from there and continue with their internships. There are probably quite a few certified auditors who would take you on in their practices to assist in getting you through your auditing and cramming requirements.

    I’m just sayin’…


    • But there is an easy solution — set up an internship line where they audit others and send the worksheets, etc. to the C/S and complete any needed instructs or crams to be certified…

      • LM:

        Another excellent idea.

        Now I’ve never been interned, but I have known some great Cram Off/Intern Supes. And from what I understand, a quality Cram Off/Int Supe is needed for a quality internship. If that can be done remotely as you say, then bully for us.


        • You’re spot on, Paul. See C/S Series 56 & 57. The intern supe and cram off are vital posts to making a real auditor. Honestly, that would be very hard to accomplish over a long distance set-up. The C/Sing can be – it’s quite easy to set up a C/S 25 line long distance. But even then, C/S Series 57 will tend to drop out, if it gets in at all in the first place. One will need an intern supe at least, doubling as cram off if needed, working in person with the intern. Then the C/S can be acquired off-lines, if that’s all that’s available. Or, one can, as I did, drive 3000 miles to find a standard course room and do their training there. Really, IMO, one would be far better off hopping on a plane and gong somewhere like to Lana’s or one of the few standard training centres (Dror seems to be coming along really well these days!) and plop oneself down and train for a few months. All depends on one’s priorities, I guess. 😉

  2. This is a great idea and exactly what is needed. I read DMSMH in 1970 at the age of 19 and not knowing there were orgs, places where one could study this, I read it 2X through and began auditing a friend. We soon found other books at the library and did LOTS of coauditing on everything imaginable to fabulous wins (such as going exterior). Point is, it is easy enough to do. And real training on TRs and metering and you are off and running. I got lured off the tech route onto admin when I got into the org but now that I’m happily auditing on OT III I’m ready to resume that side of the Bridge.

  3. Yea! Now we’re getting down to basics!
    I’m a Grades pc and certified CL IV looking for a twin to co-audit with in Canada.
    I would appreciate names of others seeking to co-audit in my area?
    Also I need a source to procure course packs, LRH checksheets, materials and good e-meters.

    • Here is a site where you can find english and french packs.http://www.stss.nl/
      Regarding emeters I got one to put on your computer the mindwalker 3A. It works beautifully. Here is the address. mindwalker.weebly.com
      Otherwise I have all packs with tapes transcripts.

      • By the way, does somebody have the course pack and tapes of Class V Graduate course? This is my next course and I would be pleased to have it on PDF

  4. In my opinion, Co audits are the best way to move forward using the LRH 1978 Levels checksheets, they get the job done fast!

    They teach one to audit while moving up the Bridge. Those who want to audit as a career can carry on, while those who don’t, at least have a good reality and the ability to use the Tech when needed.

    The other upside is in KSW, the Student gets to know the Technology and thru its proper use gets to know it is correct and so protect it. Obviously not enough of us knew this as Dave would never have gotten a foothold and we would not be in this mess.

    Bring em back big time 🙂

    • Here ya go 4a.

      Even though they are blue on white. They are pretty close to the original Checksheets issued as part of the RED the End of Endless Training as far as I can see:


      Also if one doesn’t have immediate access to a co-auditor. There are processes in the early PABs that one can self audit. Not to mention Handbook for Preclears and Self Analysis.

      I agree with Lana.

      At some point we’re going to have to get organized.

      My experience has been that most auditors are great at auditing and lousy at organization.

      Like me they used to look down at Admin Tech. A big mistake I have since tried to rectify by reading the OECs and the Management Series.

      The good thing about Mary Sue’s HQS Checksheet was that it included getting in one’s own personal Org Board.

      I highly recommend doing that version of the HQS. If one can find it.

      The one at iScientology omits this section and I personally think that is a mistake.


      There are the Levels checksheets.

      • Thanks RV!!

        “At some point we’re going to have to get organized.”

        Yep!! I for one, have got to get my confront up on that one!!

        But just in the past couple of posts there are people wanting to co-audit. There is an advertising datum that for every one person who writes in there are many more who dont (dont know the figures).

        But it just goes to show, that there is a need and want here and it is probably bigger than we suspect.

        • That’s also what I learned about politics way back when I was briefed on lobbying.

          The guy said that for every one letter written to congress there were probably 10,000 maybe more who held the same view who just didn’t bother to write.

          Probably why Ron considered the SO #1 line so important.

          There’s that and also the fact that Standard Scientology has pretty much been driven underground by the Tax Exempt Government Approved Church of Scientology.

          Seems the SPs in the USG and its various allies don’t have to rely on the CIA ,FDA, FBI or some “NGO” like the AMA or APA to do their dirty work for them since they’ve got the Church itself willing to suppress auditing and training.

          So we’ve got a lot of people keeping their head down and flying under the radar.

          Many quietly auditing others. Others getting auditing . Some getting training. Maybe we can get some Co-Auditing going.

          Not only are we going to have to organize but we are going to need some kind of HCO and some kind of Guardian function.

          Merrell brings this up on site using the word OSA which by the way is a made up word that doesn’t exist in actual policy.

          Anyway like the USG. RTC has been pretty much ineffective in “protecting” the Trade and Service marks in court.

          Both them and CST are basically paper tigers.

          Probably why they’ve resorted to this stoooopid “interrogatory” in order to dig up crimes or criminal activity which is how they successfully shut down Mayo’s AAC by the way.

          Short version Robin Cook and his Merry band posing as Missionares managed to coerce the AC Admin in Denmark to had over the OT Levels which they handed off to Mayo and his group.

          And the rest as they say is history.

          Mayo wasn’t nailed for violating Trade Marks or Copyrights but because he had in his possession the stolen OT Levels.

          Cook himself was never prosecuted and last I heard was down under in Lana’s hood growing pot for medicinal purposes.

          Moral of the story. Stick to the Auditors Code, the Code of a Scientologist and don’t do anything illegal just like Ron says in the WTH and suspect that every once in a while you’re going to get hit with an OSA operative.

          It’s already happened to me once.

          What’ll happen is they will get on your lines. Buy some auditing and no matter what you do will say it was all bad and demand a refund.

          The smart move is give ’em their money back per the Code and get ’em off your lines as fast as possible and realize that you’ve probably been set-up.

          ‘Nuff said.

          • “The guy said that for every one letter written to congress there were probably 10,000 maybe more who held the same view who just didn’t bother to write.”

            Thats the datum Im thinking of! The other point to this is that with ex Scios thinking the church will attack them, there may be less who will surface, when actually it is the best possible thing for them to do, for themselves, and to get the church back on policy.

            • I think many of us have tried in our own way to get the Church to apply policy and tech.

              Personally I spent hours writing reports that were pretty much ignored or as I wrote earlier used as “evidence” that I was “Black PRing” Management.

              What was ironic was when I was “Rolled Backed” to the source of all this so called “Black PR” it almost always turned out to be Ron 🙂

              Really it seems they don’t care if they are viewed as being off policy and out tech because as far as they’re concerned their actions have been legitimized by the USG.

              At least that’s my view.

              Milage may vary.

      • HFP, as RV suggests, is a great book for auditing. Self Analysis will also open up one’s recall and can be done on oneself (as Ron says in the book, he, as author, is actually auditing you).

        I disagree that most auditors are lousy at organization. Some are, some aren’t. A lot were on admin posts before – or after – being an auditor. I spent about 8 years on “Admin” posts, even though closely related to Tech. I was a Class IV then.

        • Probably because they were trained in admin while most of the ones I knew couldn’t find HES on the Org Board with a gun pointed at their head 😉

          Just like auditing. Admin requires training.

          Just like you wouldn’t take a Fully Hatted Letter Reg and throw ’em in session to assess a 53 to F/Ning.

          You wouldn’t take an auditor who wasn’t admin trained and throw on an admin post. Unless you wanted….

          Well you get the idea?

          That said. I found those who were auditor trained as well as admin trained to be the best administrators.

          In fact I used to cringe when any of these 90 day wonders they used to churn outta ITO as FEBC “grads” who had no tech training was assigned to Tech or Qual.

          Nice people but for the most part didn’t have a frickin’ clue and usually thought a sec check was all that was required to handle the staff.

          Again my view.

          • Of course, Robin. No need to be redundant. I guess it comes down to personal experience which leads to one’s viewpoint: seems you met a lot of bad admin terminals, or staff you had/have no use for; me, I met some of those, but a lot of good hats and well trained terminals as well. And as far as handling admin or tech, I’m SS IV, part way to SS V, Exec trained and a host of other posts and hats. I did OEC Vol 0 three times and understand the basics. I just think there’s more good than bad. Kinda like Ron says here:

            “We’ve been told how bad it is over there for seventy-six trillion years. It’s about time somebody said how good it can be somewhere. And that’s what we are doing.” – LRH (PAB 53, 27 May 1955, “Ownership”)

              • I hear ya. I usually just held my ground and showed them C/S Series 55, even when Tech Sec. But being Snr C/S and a Class VIII carried more weight and I could push back quite nicely. 😉 lol

                • Yeah it seems that nobody cared what a lowly Class VI had to say 😉

                  My happiest times were auditing in the HGC where I could lock myself in my auditing room with my PC and pretend the Org didn’t exist 🙂

                  • I doubt it was a difference between being a Class VI and an VIII. VI is quite the accomplishment, as you know. I think it was because of my attitude towards any C/Sing (exec, reg, spouse) other than from the C/S, and holding the C/S – and especially Senior C/S – as the Tech Czar. And backing up LRH, regardless of flack, and there was plenty of that! 😉

                    • Chris,

                      Actually I was kidding but it is true that I worked at the lower levels in review , correction and Staff Enhancement in qual and our only defense was the policy that “Qual takes orders from no one.”

                      In fact we had a big sign made up with that saying and used to point to it every time some exec tried to order us around 🙂

                    • I figured you were (joking), but I got your comm. And yeh, I’ve seen a few org Quals with that sign. A good adage to live by! 😉

  5. I’d love to find someone with real TR’s and co-audit “The Creation of Human Ability”. I had two of the processes run on me and they were very OT processes for me.

  6. I am in Brisbane Australia and have done some co-auditing of Book One stuff with a friend and found it great, and we did some TRs which were even better! The only reason we didn’t look at going up the grade chart was access to materials and eventually having to tackle the meter. So we gave up book one auditing and are stalled now, but would be very interested in booting this back up if anyone has any suggestions on where to start.


    • Hi Justin,

      I recommend Self Analysis and Hand Book for Preclears.

      Also many of the processes covered in Dianetics 55 don’t require a meter since the book was written about the time Ron and Volney had a falling out over the use of the meter.

      By the way you can audit pretty much anything in the book Introduction and Demonstration Processes without a meter.

      Way back when I did the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course. Ron discussed doing what was called a Health Form without a meter.

      So most auditing in general could be theoretically be done with out a meter just using PC indicators and cognitions.

      Using a meter makes the auditing faster and more reliable.

      • “Also many of the processes covered in Dianetics 55 don’t require a meter since the book was written about the time Ron and Volney had a falling out over the use of the meter.”

        Is there a source reference for this, Robin?

        • Roger that big guy 🙂


          Yesterday we used an instrument called an E-Meter to register whether or not the process was still getting results so that the auditor would know how long to continue it. While the E-Meter is an interesting investigation instrument and has played its part in research, it is not today used by the auditor except perhaps in testing the basal metabolism of the preclear. The E-Meter is no longer used to determine “what is wrong with the preclear.” As we long ago suspected, the intervention of a mechanical gadget between the auditor and the preclear had a tendency to de-personalize the session and also gave the auditor a dependence upon the physical universe and its meters which did not have to be there. I knew when we first began to use E-Meters that sooner or later something would have to be evolved, or that something would turn up which would dispense with them. I worked along that line rather consistently and about half a year before this writing developed “communication lag” as the only diagnostic instrument needed by the auditor.

          • Good reference. Although, that was later superceded by the many references on the use and value of the meter, particularly data on running unreading items and flows. Example: on the 1976 ARC S/W Process Checklist, there’s at least one process from Dn 55 run IF it is reading. And comm lag is still valid, as you point out, but augmented by the HCOB on End Phenomena for Scientology processing. Probably the best thing is to get a good C/S on the line. But, one can always dive into the pool and hope there aren’t any rocks on the bottom. 😉

            • True.

              Actually the meter was put back in use in the latter part of the ’50’s.

              My dearly departed old friend Don Breeding was part of the project to create a solid state meter that would replace what had become Volney’s unwieldy monstrosities.

              Plus other squirrel meters being “developed” back then.

              Funny how history repeats itself 😉

              Anyway one could probably get away without using one at Lower Levels while at upper levels I’d only recommend it to those who have suicidal tendencies 🙂

      • “Using a meter makes the auditing faster and more reliable.”

        Reads on the meter reflect charge just below the pc’s awareness so it allows for the auditor and pc to go deeper in their auditing as without a meter, most auditing will run shallow. But in NED, one can see how the meter makes auditing quicker, as RV says. Reliability, IMO, is dependent upon the skill and training of the auditor. I think, also, the pc and auditor “know”; the meter just validates it. But, there’s much to be said about meter use, too much for a short comment.

    • Justin, what you have already done is quite an achievement. In addition to RVs suggestions, Lana has a broad network of people who are in communication with her, with at least one in Brisbane, you should get in touch on the back channels. Jim, her partner, is an excellent Course Sup and Qual terminal who could help you with a pgm of steps to get you moving and keep an eye on your progress.

      Also, if I were you, I would take a trip to Gundaroo to be checked out on TRs Metering and procedure, it should not be a long cycle.

      As well as that, RV posted the links above to the Levels checksheets as LRH set them out, you can download them, plus the Issues that go along with them. There is a film on the net on the meter reads here http://scientolipedia.org/info/Meter_Reads_Drill_Film. You can buy meters on Ebay, I have used a Mark 6,7 and Quantum without issue but the pros on this blog would have a better idea on them than me.

      Hope this helps, I would love to hear of your progress from time to time.

      • “Also, if I were you, I would take a trip to Gundaroo to be checked out on TRs Metering and procedure, it should not be a long cycle.”

        Good, sane advice. Always worth the trip. 🙂

        “As well as that, RV posted the links above to the Levels checksheets as LRH set them out.”

        These checksheets were mocked up by Dan Koon. Look good enough, though. One thing to realize is that LRH rarely wrote checksheets later on, but had I/A approve them as in accordance with policy and tech on writing checksheets and what should be on them. Also, there are lots of sources around for the 1987 Academy Levels checksheets, which are quite good themselves.

      • Thank you for your advice. I will make contact with Lana and hopefully make a plan to move forward. I have utilised processes from other books with great success but it feels like I’m just patching holes in a leaky vessel and not learning how to build a better ship. So I want to start progressing up the bridge in order to do that. But it always just seemed like an insurmountable task. And I have just given up. But new year and new motivation to progress. I will let you know how it goes! Thanks again for all your help

    • As 4a has suggested, get in touch with Lana. That will get the ball rolling. Why are you stalled? Can’t you just continue with Book 1? Or do you feel done with it? Also, what about doing the Purification RD? You can do that with your friend as a twin, right out of the book Clear Body, Clear Mind.

      And get a Case Supervisor. That’s one of the best things you can do.

  7. Lou, I am not sure you got my message. You can find a good E Meter the mindwalker3A on the site mindwalker.weebly.com
    And you can find the packs of the Levels in French and in English including the tapes transcripts on the site http://www.stss.nl/

    • Merci beaucoup, Joseph.
      I will check out the computer e-meter but will most likely go with the Mark VI e-meter as RV pointed out that the Mk VI was the last meter that LRH personally supervised the construction of.
      Your lead for getting packs, tape transcripts, etc will no doubt be very valuable as I do need to get those things.
      Congratulations on getting back in the chair and your awsome wins, Joseph. Thanks again and keep going.


      • There’s a fellow who makes an Ability Meter that I’ve heard is an excellent meter. It’s like the Mark V, but with updated circuitry and components. Also, the Mark VII is a good meter, but the Quantum has some issues, from an auditor perspective. There is another non-CoS physical meter that’s good, too. I think its called the Clarity Meter. Personally I’d stay away from computer software-based meters. Still susceptible to glitching. The above is my opinion as a working auditor.

        • I understand your point Chris. However the software meters should not be discarded as they are a real ressource. At this point one should not spit on it. Personally I used the Mark V, the VI the VII and the Quantum. Per my own opinion the mindwalker 3A is the best meter I ever used.

          • Hi Joseph,

            No, I wasn’t discarding them nor spitting on them, and for sure they may have a big role in the future of auditing. Definitely easy to travel with them! But there have been some reviews and lengthy discussions on the two types of meters (hardware vs. software) and the software do have some issues with latency and background or TSR programs and other issues with RAM, etc. There’s also some pre-programmed functions which tend to over-ride user control. As an auditor, I don’t like that.

            Older CoS meters also have some issues with out-dated circuitry and boards, which is why the newer non-CoS meters are held in high regard (Ability, Clarity). However, I use a Mk VII Quantum and find it works quite well, except for the “quantumizing” GOLD did on them. I like a regular Mk VII better as I have more control over it. I’ll probably try out an Ability one of these days.

            • By the way I think my use of “spit” is a bit rude. In french it is king of slang to mean “not consider it”. Like “One should not spit on such an opportunity” would mean in french “one should consider such an opportunity”. Anyway I got your point. True enough I was surprised at first, especially with the blowdowns and floating TAs because of the automaticity of the Tone Arm. But then, when I got used to it, I found it very fun and quick. But it is good that we have the future ensured as for E-Meters.

            • Hi Chris,
              I share this view about preferring control over automaticity. I had oonce a pc with a real high TA (6+). The sensivity-boosting of f the of a Quantum turned the sensivity so high that the meter became me ununusable. One couldn’t keep the needle on the scale as it was far to high. I was glad to have an Mark VI available which could be used to handle what was needed to be handled. Since then I consider it to be a technical fault that the automaticity of the Quantum cannot be turned off.

              • I agree, Worsel. Same with solo auditing and sens. I prefer being able to adjust the sensitivity myself in session (a la 1960 EME). Quantumizing the VII might have been a good idea, IDK, but it was poorly executed as you point out (no off/on switch). With computer meters, I find the tone arm auto adjusts and can obscure BDs or FNs or sometimes reads. But that’s just my observation and personal preference. Cheers

                • Probably one would need to conduct tests, like holding 2 solo cans, one set plugged into one reference meter the other into the meter one wants to test, then observe if there are differences or ame reactions. (Better done on meter drills rather than with a live pc with real charge, but that could be done too) I use an old Ability Meter with a manual Tone Arm. I like better the manual adjustment, it’s similar to the cars with dials rather than digital displays. The feeling one gets when the thumb goes down on the TA dial gives some more havingness and reality about mass being blown out. Sometimes I use a Mindwalker meter, same guys that engineered the Ability meters, the first model and with an automatic TA adjustment push button, for some solo. It’s fun and easy to play with, like a handsfree smartphone. For the co- audit – yes, that’s the thing to do. Might be good to have a Grad V auditor/CS or above within reach to perform in depth life repairs when needed, as going through the Grades and NED with resistive aspects of a case unhandled and unadressed might be a rough ride.

                  • Good points, Pierrot. I like the Ability Meter (although never used one, just like the style and function); I especially agree with what you say here:

                    “I like better the manual adjustment, it’s similar to the cars with dials rather than digital displays. The feeling one gets when the thumb goes down on the TA dial gives some more havingness and reality about mass being blown out.”

                    I like the idea of portability with a computer software based meter as I take my laptop with me when I travel. I think I’ll have to check it out eventually. But right now, being “old school”, I love seeing the TA BD like a rocket on my Solo, and I like the response of the needle. I DO like the digital TA counter, as I remember quite well on my Academy levels and IV internship, using a Mark V with manual TA counter and adding it all up after session! lol

  8. That is wonderful, Chris. We are really making things go right here and it looks as though finally (70 years younge), I can move up LRH’s bridge to total Freedom. Wow!

  9. That is so right. I was real happy when I was auditing. I actually audited roughly for 20 years from 1975 till 1995. I was a student then more of a pro (class V grad) helped the org, auditing staff and public.
    I actually started with co audit, auditing R3R (prior to Ned). Hundred and hundred of hours! And objectives (god my feet hurt) I was young! Then I did my academy. And I was auditing grades, grades. Then I did my OT level up to 3. No eligibility yet, it was before 82. And I was auditing again. Not one week I was not having at least a PC. I was a public. I did 2 years on staff, cramming officer. Then came 1983. Something was very wrong. I withdrew… Went back in 1984. Audit again, mainly review. Repairing sec check, LCRE etc… Lots of GF, CS 53.
    Went to Flag and did solo not’s. And finally New OTVIII (certainly not LRH).
    I still gave session in my org till 1995. Then Golden Age. Saw student suffering on meter course. I didn’t want it. I sneaked away… Almost never did any metered auditing anymore. Except very recently being out of the church, I audited someone who completed OT3 on OT7 processes. Quite fun!
    But i have no PC, quite alone in my aerea.

    • Wow, FG, what an incredible story! It’s fantastic. You were really there. I hear you re 1995 and GAT. It really began to seal the coffin on training. You sound quite adept at auditing; where are you located?

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s