By Lana M.

Let’s look more at the solution of co-audits in the field.

Here is LRH’s definition of a co-audit, and why it is important:

 “The term “co-auditing” is an abbreviation for “cooperative auditing.”


 “It is a cooperative action toward a very worthwhile goal.

“The co-audit is an early Scientology and Dianetics innovation.

“It was the bright idea used in the early days to get auditing done in more volume and on a broader scale than would ever have been possible on a one-for-one basis at that time. It was also a means of training the many who were demanding training in this new technology, and providing them with the opportunity to get their own cases handled while at the same time giving them a subjective reality on the processes they were delivering to others.

 “It was then and is today a very valuable tool.

“Co-audits are our quickest and most economical way of restoring vitality and purpose to the society, something I know all Scientologists are working with me to achieve.

 “Co-audits can handle the many, staff and public alike, who are reaching for those auditing actions meant to bring them up through the next levels toward Clearing and who are willing to bootstrap their way up through these levels.


“Co-auditing is not a limited activity. Any pair of Scientologists who have the interest and desire to help each other up the Grade Chart can co-audit.” LRH, HCOB 28 May 1980, Co-Audit Series 1, CO-AUDIT DEFINED

Many do not understand that there are two types of co-audits — the first for those professionally trained as auditors, and the second for persons with little or no auditor training. The same HCOB goes on to say:

“A professional co-audit is a co-audit between auditors trained on the skills of a level who are auditing each other on that level. (A nonprofessional co-audit is one designed for co-auditors who have not had professional auditor training.)

“Professional co-audits have long been a favored and highly successful method whereby Scientologists can move up the auditing and training sides of the Bridge.

“Professional co-audits are for auditors who are doing the Professional Training Route and for auditors who have completed their training but haven’t themselves moved up the Grades.

“Academy and Saint Hill Special Briefing Course students could and should co-audit and get themselves up the Grade Chart as they go, in pace with their training.

 “Professional co-auditing can be done following each auditor training course. It can also be done on special co-audits set up by orgs so that these auditors can continue to co-audit under the supervision of org tech terminals and use org facilities.

“Such co-audits for public students would be charged for at a nominal rate and would include C/Sing, etc.

 “A student can get all of his Grades and New Era Dianetics auditing on these co-audits.”   …     “Staff co-audits are by far the most advantageous method for an org to ensure its staff get and stay in good case shape and move on up the Bridge.

“A well-run staff co-audit is the answer to the problem of how an org gets all its staff audited.

“The staff co-audit can be arranged to be done by trained staff auditors (teamed with each other) and/or untrained staff (teamed with each other).

“It can include any processing from the beginning of the Grade Chart up through New Era Dianetics as well as processing on special rundowns designed for co-audit purposes.

“In the case of untrained staff co-auditing, this would ideally begin with the TRs and Objectives Co-audit Course. As part of the co-audit, the staff member would first be trained on TRs for co-audit level and Upper Indocs and then co-audit with his twin on a full battery of Objectives, as directed by the C/S.

“Following this, the untrained staff co-auditors would need to be gradiently programed and C/Sed and taken step-by-step through the next Grade Chart action on a “read-it, drill-it, do-it” basis.

 “Read-it, drill-it, do-it” means:

“1. The co-auditors twin up and study and check each other out on the basic issues and skills for the process or Grade to be audited.

“2. They drill the actual actions involved in running the process, under tight supervision of a trained Co-audit Supervisor.

“3. They then audit each other on the process to EP, under the tight guidance of a trained Co-audit Supervisor.”

While professional and non-professional co-audits provide a simple solution for those in the field, it is important to understand that all co-auditing should be done in accord with the LRH Grade Chart and overseen and directed by a qualified C/S. LRH gives details on this further in the Co-Audit Series in Volume XII.

 “The Grade Chart is the guiding factor in any co-audit. One doesn’t audit a pc on processes or rundowns above his Grade in violation of the Grade Chart, regardless of where the auditing is done or whether it is an HGC type of action or a co-audit action. On any co-audit, the process to be run is determined by the C/S and he uses the Grade Chart as the basic pc program in each individual case.”

There is also the importance of twinning in a co-audit. A co-audit teams needs to be committed, enthusiastic and making sure that they do not go mutually out-ruds. Whether it is bypassing misunderstoods, not cleaning up dirty needles, agreeing with natter or simply blowing the action – it is vital that those on a co-audit realise they must get each other through, by applying all the basic tools available. LRH states the following:

“The theory of mutual out-ruds is covered in HCOB 17 Feb. 74, CIS Series 91, MUTUAL OUT-RUDS. Mutual out-ruds can stack up on courses and the Supervisors must be sharp in recognizing indicators in a pair of students with out-ruds on the rest of the group, and get them handled. A co-audit team withdrawn or out of comm with the rest of the class could be a mutual ARC break or withholds. A pair going around looking overly concerned or hunted likely have a mutual problem. Two students joking or being snide obviously have withholds from the group. Now these things could also stem from something misunderstood in their train- ing and the Supervisor must detect this and handle by finding the MUs and straight- ening out the student’s drilling and procedure. Whatever the cause, the Supervisor must not let mutual out-ruds go unhandled and the C/S must order checks for mutual out-ruds when necessary to keep a co-audit team’s ruds in on each other and on the group. Failing to do this can cost dearly in terms of lost gains for pcs. Mutual out-ethics must be spotted and handled as well. (Ref: HCOB 13 Oct. 82, CIS Series 116, ETHICS AND THE C/S).

“Students who are blowy or who have blown must be recovered and handled. They must first be checked for BPC in their sessions and out-tech on their cases and then checked over for MUs and overts and withholds as co-auditors. Since they are engaged in both receiving and giving auditing, both aspects must be thoroughly checked. When the session BPC is found or the out-Int handled or the O/Ws pulled such blowy feelings will cease. The blown student’s twin is responsible for recovering his course partner per HCOB 21 Aug. 79, TWINNING.”

In my experience, co-auditing is a superb way to both give and receive auditing. It is a perfect balance of theory and application and it gives a person both a reality and understanding on how to handle the bank.

For me, after working for more than a decade in the Sea Org on administrative lines, I was lucky enough to end up on a co-audit, and it changed my reality and understanding as a Scientologist completely. Co-auditing on TRs, co-auditing on KTL Clay Table, co-auditing on FPRD and much more, resolved a stalled case and got me trucking on up The Bridge. There is Self Analysis, there is the Purification Rundown, TRs and Objectives, Handbook for Preclears processes and so much more.

Jump in and give it a go. If there is a demand, we can get a permanent page on the Milestone Two website where people can post notices where they are looking for a co-audit twin in their region, where Supervisors, W/Cers and also C/Ses can let people know how to contact them.

If this would be helpful, let us know and we can get it set up.

74 thoughts on “Auditing solutions

  1. “Many do not understand that there are two types of co-audits….”

    Actually, you could say there are three types, Lana, the third being staff co-audits on the RIDIDI method. LRH specifically lays out this method of co-audit for staff, under guided and trained tutelage.

    As for non-professional co-audits, there is DMSMH and early PABs, like Six Steps, etc., and, as you have pointed out, there is Self Analysis,the Purification RD, TRs and Objectives, Handbook for Preclears processes and much more.

    However, I have seen and heard many examples of people mixing these methods, or using this issue to justify auditing another (both professionally as well as in a “co-audit”) without sufficient training, but just reading it, maybe drilling it, and doing it. Even RIDIDI has set standards in its drilling and application. It is not meant for people moving up the Bridge, and it definitely doesn’t mean just reading the process and auditing it on another (true story).

    I just wanted to point this out and that if anyone wants to move up the Grades and onto the OT levels, training on each level and then co–auditing is their best solution. Anything less and they deny themselves and their twin eternity.

    Here is what Ron had to say about co-audits in the original, non-RTC HCOB 28 May 1980, Co-AUDIT Series 1:


    Co-auditing is not a limited activity. Any pair of Scientologists who have the interest and desire to help each other up the Grade Chart can co-audit.

    There are beginners’ co-audits for new people. There are professional co-audits for trained auditors. Where specially designed co-audit packages are issued, nonprofessional co-audits can now be conducted for public on some of the first steps of the Grade Chart. Co-audits (professional and non-professional) should always be available for staff.”

    He goes on to define and outline the HAS Co-Audit as well as hoe to run specific RD co-audits, like the Survival RD. To that could be added TRs & Objectives, Method One W/Cing co-audit, and a number of other specific RDs. But again, it is undertaken give specific parameters:


    Rundown co-audits are especially designed co-audit packages set up to permit co-audit team members, regardless of their training or lack of it, to audit each other through the full steps of that rundown.

    Included in a rundown co-audit are any and all study and training steps needed to prepare co-auditors to successfully audit each other to the full EP of the rundown.”


    It is expected that co-audit packages on other rundowns will be released from time to time in the future. These rundown co-audit packages would be carefully planned and tailored to include the minimal but correct and necessary training gradients for delivery to public as well as staff.

    This does not mean that, in the absence of such a package for a specific rundown, co-auditing could not be done. Auditors trained in the skills of a level of a particular run. down could co-audit that rundown, provided they are at that level pc-wise and training-wise. The co-audit would need to be organized and be properly supervised and C/Sed throughout, but the organization could be as minimal as providing a setup for one such co-audit team.”

    There are further important and relevant data I’ll include here from the original, unassisted, non-Mayo, non-RTC/DM LRH issue as well. It would be a good idea to read the complete original for a complete understanding of co-audits.


    Orgs do not have the license to offer public non-professional co-audits on NED (Full NED Programs) or the Grades.

    Training courses are already very much streamlined.

    Any public interested in co-auditing New Era Dianetics or the Grades should be routed on to the NED Course or the Academy Levels where they can rapidly complete their study and get on to the professional co-audits.

    Thus an org’s concentration as far as public co-audits go would be on Div 6 co-audits, specific rundown co-audit packages and professional co-audits on New Era Dianetics and the Grades.”


    A professional co-audit is a co-audit between auditors trained on the skills of a level who are auditing each other on that level.

    Professional co-audits have long been a favored and highly successful method whereby Scientologists could move up the auditing and training sides of the Bridge.

    Professional co-audits are for auditors who are doing the Professional Training Route and for auditors who have completed their training but haven’t themselves moved up the Grades. Professional co-audits are offered in Department 11 (Department of Training).

    Academy and Briefing Course students could and should co-audit and get themselves up the Grade Chart as they go, in pace with their training.

    Professional co-auditing can be done following each auditor training course. It can also be done on special co-audits set up by orgs so that these auditors can continue to co-audit under the supervision of org tech terminals and use org facilities.

    Such co-audits for public students would be charged for at a nominal fee and would include C/Sing, etc.

    A person can get all of his New Era Dianetics and Grades auditing on these co-audits.”

    LRH also includes a complete history of co-audits, and lists the exact issue and lecture discussing them in this HCOB, omitted from the 1991 RTC revision (interestingly). He also discusses how to run a HAS Co-Audit for new public, again missing from the RTC 1991 revision. I suggest following the original 1980 issue as RTC revisions are suspect in the least.


    • Chris,

      I totally dig where you’re coming from.

      But in my view it is more important to get co-auditing occurring in the field and then pick up the pieces.

      Here is a policy that probably most Scientologists are unaware of because it was omitted from the newer OECs. Yet as far as I know was never canceled:


      The Gradation Programme directives violated a broad, longstanding policy of mine: That all Dianetic and Scientology materials were for the use of all Dianeticists and Scientologists.

      Although I have received no complaints from anyone about this, I nevertheless do not feel right about telling Scientologists that there are certain materials they cannot use or be audited on.

      I would rather leave this matter wholly to personal experience of others and make the Gradation Programme only a recommendation not a directive.

      Accordingly, therefore the following policy is issued:

      1) Any and all materials of Dianetics and Scientology may be used or received by auditors and preclears regardless of any assigned level or grade;

      2) That classification and certificate issue remain based on these levels to indicate relative skills and state of training of auditors, and give them the most case wins for their auditing training level;

      3) That all preclears only be advised that they will make best progress through following these levels in upward progress;

      4) That the Gradation Programme remain as it is but without any enforcement or discipline for failing to follow it;

      5) That the Gradation Programme. is only a recommended route for best results.


      • I get where you’re coming from, Robin, and that’s why I mentioned to 4a that it may not be perfect, but it can be complete. One can muddle through (a valid evolutionary process, muddling through); but one should not bounce about the Grade Chart doing whatever one can (despite your having fun with it), but instead maximize gains through properly C/Sed programs (see C/S Series). We are in 2015, long after standardization of gains. And to that end, here’s Ron:

        “Where does Standard Tech begin? What is it?

        It is the accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and OT. The exact method of organizing them, the exact method of delivering them, and the exact repair of any errors made on that route.

        So the net result of all of this is that when it is not standard he will have had some gain; it’s not all bad, but he’ll also have not achieved his full gain.

        And the difference between some gain and the difference between that and full gain, is the difference between wobbly-bobbly tech and very standard, precise tech.”

        Class VIII TAPE 2, 25 September 1968 “WHAT STANDARD TECH DOES”

        • Hey we’re on the same page here Chris.

          Sure the ideal scene would be to have co-auditors auditing *standardly* on the levels.

          But right now the situation which is a situation whether it is Dastardly Dave by his incompetent self or with the help of his “mutual” friends in the USG or because of some Marcabian influence as the Robertson crowd suspect and that at least per Data Series 11 we can work out a handling of some kind which will eventually approach the ideal scene somehow.

          That’s my only point here.

          • You’re right, Robin, but that doesn’t mean one throws out the baby with the bathwater. Baby steps, but standard baby steps.

            And you don’t think the Marcab crowd is on shift? 😉

            • I really can’t comment on the Robertson crowd.

              Personally I know of no reference where Ron discusses any extraterrestrial influence except maybe to the limited degree discussed in the lecture The Role of Earth and later lectures on the Briefing Course where he discusses Between Life Implants.

              That said. I think one should always be willing to entertain extreme possibilities. No matter how implausible they may seem.

              Although I don’t think invalidating their reality does any good.

              At some point they may realize that whatever is happening on this planet is terrestrially based.

              • “I really can’t comment on the Robertson crowd.”

                Oh, ok. I thought you had in the past. Anyway, I think it’s possible external influence is more than just “terrestrial”.

                • I think I said the above in probably a different way basically saying the same thing that I didn’t know of any reference that I’ve personally seen written by Ron supporting the ET Hypothesis.

                  Also I do agree that what you say is possible.

                  My only objection to many “Conspiracy Theories” is that they try to explain everything as one vast overarching conspiracy like the Illuminati or the New World Order or Marcabs or whatever when there may be other actors involved with similar objectives.

                  Some of these could be ET.

                  Though personally I couldn’t see why they’d be interested in this back water planet other then for any reason but as a source of amusement 😉

  2. Ideally, a person wanting to co-audit their way up the Bridge would go into an org to a standard course room, with a good Intern Sup and C/S at hand to supervise and help them. Unfortunately we have dave tech and I do not know of co-audits happening in my area for many years, in fact very few Auditors being made.

    But in my opinion that structure an org can provide is very important, if not vital, especially for newer people on the Bridge, and until the orgs can get back on policy it needs to be duplicated somehow in the field.

    Thanks for the references, Lana and Chris!

    • True, 4a, in a perfect world…. But don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t trying to block the road, just make sure it’s paved, not rocky. One can get a twin and do the courses together (RV linked to some checksheets) and then one could get checked out on TRs and metering somewhere – or even not! – just muddle through, which was how it was done many times. But don’t short-change the data and drills on a checksheet just to quickie up the Bridge. It may not be perfect, but it can be complete. 😉

      • ” But don’t short-change the data and drills on a checksheet just to quickie up the Bridge”

        I get what you are saying Chris and agree with you!

      • Nobody’s promoting short changing the data here Chris.

        Besides even if some co-auditors were silly enough to quickie the Grades or only ran triple or quads which as far as I know have never been canceled.

        They can be picked up on OT Preps (as long as they’re not in the non-interference zone) or after OT III or even after NOTs with the Original OT IV RD.


        Maybe we can set up a line via the ‘net where auditors who are co-auditing in Hoboken or Timbuktu can contact us for references and instruction if they run into any difficulty or be directed to a trained VIII, VI or Grad V who can do reviews that’s nearby.

        Kinda like the RED on Superior Org Image.

        Otherwise we’re going to have to wait until the Orgs are no longer occupied territory and who knows how long that will be?

        I mean. Right now. We are all winging it. Because the Orgs are no longer a safe space to receive Standard Tech.

        • Neither is the field, but I digress.

          One can wing it floppily, or one can wing it with aplomb. Without rationalizing it. IMO.

          ‘Nuff said.

          • Nobody’s rationalizing or justifying Chris:

            L. Ron Hubbard EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE

            LRH ED 67 INT 20 December 1969
            TO EVERY STAFF MEMBER 26 February 1982
            to include the last
            10 paragraphs which
            were never printed.

            HOW TO RAISE STATS

            Here is a bit of advice that will help you raise stats.


            Auditing is for USE.

            The service being supplied by your org is auditing even
            when you are training auditors – for if they are well
            trained good auditing is furnished to the area around them.

            Staff members get auditing. They furnish auditing. Staff
            members get trained as auditors. By training other
            auditors well they furnish auditing.

            The admin done is done to furnish auditing and training of

            The Ethics put in provides an environment in which auditing
            is possible and in which it can be taught.

            All roads lead to auditing.

            Stats depend on auditing being done and being taught.

            People progress from left to right on the org board to be
            audited or trained in auditing.

            You are raising your area little by little by auditing.

            Auditing is something one does. It must be done.

            The HCOES the OES and the PES act to keep the org there and
            pass people through who are audited or being trained to

            An org is an auditing factory that also trains people to audit.

            That’s the basic way we will win the world – Auditing.

            The divisions and posts flanking tech are all auditing and
            training support posts that move people down the assembly
            line of auditing and training.

            That’s why I say 2-1 Admin-Tech ratio. All persons on
            staff who are not needed on Admin (exceed the ratio) should
            be in full time training as auditors.

            Auditors are valuable. An org is valuable if it audits and
            trains auditors. If an org is valuable it will get paid by
            the public to be there. But it is only valuable if it
            audits and trains auditors.

            Small livingness courses, defense, policy, the OEC,
            promotion, all these are valuable too. But only to the
            degree they get people in to get audited and trained as

            The field is filling up with Dianetic courses and Dianetic
            auditors. That is great. But it means an org has to serve
            them and do even more auditing and upper level training to
            handle their rougher cases and to make higher level auditors.

            That’s the heart of it. A 49 man org with only 3 auditors
            and one supervisor will flop. In a 49 man org 17 or more
            should be auditors and course supervisors. When more than
            24 of them are (1 to 1),then the Admin actions under the
            HCOES and PES don’t get done and the line slows.

            An org gets people (on any gradient) to get audited and
            gets people to be trained as auditors.

            That gives the org purpose – for only auditing can clean up
            a community. That gives action. That gives income.

            If an org isn’t so oriented then no manner of highly
            skilled management will make it go.

            That’s the way it is.


            I am the source of Dianetic and Scientology Tech, know-how
            and org form.

            A staff member is the source of his stats.

            I am responsible for the potential of the auditing.

            An auditor is responsible for the application of the

            I wrote the bulletins and data sheet.

            The course supervisor is fully and the only one responsible
            for getting it to the student.

            When you see this as a fact, you can easily become cause –
            over your post, over those about you, over your stats.

            You are also a living, causative being.

            I have faith in you.




            L. RON HUBBARD


            L. Ron Hubbard EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE

            LRH ED 54 INT 10 December 1969


            PROGRAM NO. 1

            TO ALL PESes:

            Dianetic Courses being taught and Dianetic auditing being
            used in Franchises shows that Dianetics is popular.

            By having Dianetic Auditing going in the field you have the
            makings of an org boom if it is handled right.

            It is an old maxim IF AUDITING IS OCCURRING IN THE FIELD
            ORGS WILL BOOM.

            It is no real concern of ours to try to hold the field
            versions Standard. They mess up pcs and students. They
            always will. A militant org attitude to keep the field
            straight is silly. Let them flub as you are trying to
            control something you cannot. You can only do the best you
            can by teaching the best you can in the orff.

            The real org action is to put it out that IN AN ORG WE USE

            The whole org message is, If anyone gets roughed up in
            field training or processing THE OFFICIAL ORGS EXIST TO

            If the org is trying to guarantee their training and
            processing in some group or franchise (and it can’t) then
            it gets a black eye.

            If an org exists to handle the rough cases, then it is the
            place to go.

            A line to Franchises to the effect that the org will be
            happy to handle their rough cases or pcs if they send them
            in to the org (at the student or pc’s own expense) will be
            received as very welcome news.

            An org is not just another Franchise and competitor and

            The org is the benign source of the groups and Franchises
            and helps them out.


            It’s all Standard in the org. If the field auditor needs
            help the org gives it by straightening up his individual
            students and pcs if they’ll just come in.

            The image is that org service is superior because it is.

            The Official Org must be more standard than anything
            happening in the field or in Franchise.

            Then of course there is:

            HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
            I looked for a long time for any flaw in the idea of organization. It does have a flaw.
            The basic flaw in organization is INSPECTION BEFORE THE FACT. That means inspection before anything bad has happened.
            Violations are so harmful they destroyed every great civilization—the Roman, the British, the lot. For every flow is slowed or stopped.
            The prosperity of any organization is directly proportional to the speed of its particles—goods, people,
            World trade, world shipping, world prosperity is dying only because of the cumulative effect of inspection before the fact. Passports, customs, safety regulations, general government interference before anything bad has occurred add up to a SUPPRESSIVE SOCIETY and therefore, soon enough, a dead one.
            Penalty after the fact has occurred disciplines the criminals and does not pull down the majority to criminal level.
            Scientology organizations must never lose sight of the reason organizations have decayed.
            L. RON HUBBARD

            • But they are rationalizing, Robin. Get your head out of wherever it is and look around the internet…or even in your area of the cosmos. For over 15 years I’ve looked at all the rationalizations and justifications to do all kinds of off-beat and weird auditing, all because “any auditing is better than no auditing” (despite LRH later rescinding and clarifying that). I’ve catalogued it and Qualled it and let HCO Ethics Files do their work, so I know where the the scene is today. So yeh, I think if you put the tech in right, right from the get-go, everybody will win that much more.

              Thanks for the refs; they totally support what I was saying.

              Also, I know those refs very well. I ran orgs and Tech Divs and Qual Divs and built academies from nothing to going concerns and I got auditing occurring and built superior service image in any org I was in. Unless you’re cutting & pasting for other reasons, it’s sufficient to just give the reference name or date and type. 😉

              Also, isn’t there something Ron wrote – policy or something, maybe the one on seniority of orders or issue types you’ve posted before – about LRH EDs having force for only one year?

              • I suggest you apply the following HCOB which I will quote in full:

                Remimeo Class VIIIs Class VIII
                HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
                HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JANUARY 1975
                The purpose of the Class VIII Course is to train an Auditor up to be able to deliver 100% Standard Tech and turn him into a zealot in pushing in Standard Tech in the field.
                This has been the purpose of Class VIII since its inception.
                Its materials are fully valid. The original checksheet has been restored. It is a tough and demanding course. It is not Fast Flow but 3 times through with starrates and exams.
                Training of Auditors as Class VIIIs to forward Standard Tech is absolutely vital today. It is not “old” or “background”. Its materials cannot be found on any other course. They are only available on the Class VIII Course.
                A real Class VIII Auditor cannot be compared with a Class IV or VI. A Class VIII is a flawless, flubless, smooth as silk specialist in Standard Tech. He can handle any case with ease. He is a dedicated advocate for Standard Tech. He pushes in Standard Tech in his area and sets an example by his own flawless performance.
                STANDARD TECH
                The way a Class VIII gets in Standard Tech is by encouraging lower classed Auditors to use the materials of Standard Tech and apply them.
                A Class VIII must beware of invalidating lower classed Auditors and make sure he doesn’t fall into that trap. Invalidation never works and is in fact destructive. Under invalidation an Auditor will cease to audit well, will goof and back off from auditing entirely.
                To get in Standard Tech, always encourage lower level Auditors to apply standard materials, tapes, HCO Bs and books. Help them to do so. Direct them to the references. See they get crammed, not invalidated. After all, they are willing to help, or they wouldn’t be Auditors.
                Class VIII is the standard by which other auditing is judged. Class VIII gives the certainty and precision of 100% Standard Tech. Class VIIIs get in Standard Tech by encouraging lower level Auditors to apply standard materials, never by invalidation.
                Every Auditor should one day make it to Class VIII. No org can afford to be without at least one Class VIII. These are the Custodians of Standard Tech.
                LRH: RS:nt jh
                Copyright © 1975
                by L. Ron Hubbard
                ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

                Also regarding REDs. True programs and orders are retired after one year as it says in Issues-Types Of but this doesn’t cancel any tech basics covered in these issues.

            • Just to clarify, Robin, I think we want the same thing so I think we’re on the same page. Perhaps. It might just boil down to how it is accomplished. Yes, train them and let them have at it, but that doesn’t mean one needs to skimp on the training, nor quickie it. C/S Series 77 “Quickie” Defined, and KSW Series 6, Tech Downgrades both apply here as well.

              • Yes true.

                The only thing I object to is a militant attitude.

                One that made many not all Sea Org members that I ran into so obnoxious.

                Who like you know who had the idea that one could make a “perfect” auditor without them setting foot in session and despite what Ron says in the RED Making Auditors or Supervisors Stable Data.

                Again I’m going to quote another HCOB which I think is very important:

                HCO BULLETIN OF 26 FEBRUARY 1970
                Invalidation is a serious button.
                When a Class VIII goes home, he is, of course, a better auditor.
                He can and will crash all stats in the area if he charges around invalidating all auditors not so fortunate as to be an VIII.
                STANDARD TECH Clarifying what Standard Tech is:
                An Auditor correctly auditing the materials of his class is performing Standard Tech.
                Standard Tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing.
                For example, one runs a process to its end phenomena. One lists by L & N laws. One sees that a question reads before auditing it. One audits with TRs in. One follows the Auditor’s Code. One repairs any ARC Break or gets it repaired. One doesn’t kid around and coffee shop with processes. One gets trained for the grade he is auditing. One uses study tech. One checks out HCO Bs correctly. That sort of thing is Standard Tech.
                Any process ever taught on the SHSBC or ever released in ANY book can be audited and be Standard Tech.
                Standard Tech cancelled no certs or classes or processes.
                If you check a process question to see if it reads and run it to its F/N and other end phenomena following the rules of auditing, that’s Standard Tech.
                Basically, Standard Tech was a way of auditing following the rules of auditing as listed above.
                There are ways to C/S for maximum case gain but these vary and advance. __________
                Remember, stats of an area can be crashed if an VIII begins to invalidate every auditor junior to him or the C/Sing.
                The stats of an area can be made to soar by an VIII who helpfully guides others into respecting the basic rules of auditing.
                When an VIII returns to an area these things should happen:
                1. Enthusiasm of auditors for auditing pcs should increase.
                2. Volume of auditing hours delivered should soar.
                3. New people should be clamoring to become auditors.
                4. Training speed per student should quicken.
                5. Respect for correct auditing as noted above should increase.
                6. People not getting results should be guided into correct application for their grade.
                7. Auditing results should increase per session.
                8. Auditing and training should boom in popularity.
                Now review what you know of auditing as an HDG and VIII and you will find you have been taught how to do all the above.
                In studying VIII keep your eye on how to get the above eight things going in your area with what you now know. You won’t be able to make VIIIs out of HDCs or Class IVs or VIs but you sure can make terrific HDCs, IVs and VIs out of them.
                That’s why you’re an VIII.
                LRH :jz.ei.rd
                Copyright © 1970
                by L. Ron Hubbard
                ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
                L. RON HUBBARD Founder

                • No militant attitude here, Robin. Seems you may be misduplicating things, perhaps because you’ve been run roughshod over in the past and think it’s happening again? IDK. I guess you just disagree with doing things standardly. That’s all I’ve been saying. You, you’re throwing these huge references up like a barrage. As I said, I get it you disagree with doing things standardly and just want them to do anything they can. I’m on the other side of that argument. I guess we’re not on the same page after all. I’m done.

                  • That is presumptuous Chris.

                    I have nothing against doing Tech Standardly.

                    Obviously you didn’t read my response to Scat.

                    That said.

                    I think it is more important to get auditing quantity up first before we worry about quality.

                    Ron says this in the C/S Series in an HCOB I’m sure you’re familiar with.

                    Doing it backwards has been a dismal failure.

                    The Golden Age of Tech is proof of this.

                    Aside the fact that the drills violate the PL on Drills Allowed is the idea that one has to drill an auditor to “perfection” before allowing them near a PC.

                    Also I made the distinction between Pro and Co-Auditing which you seem to totally ignore.

                    So your conclusion on whether I support standard tech or not are based solely on your own Ser Fac.

                    • Not at all presumptuous, Robin. Cold, hard observation. You seem to assume identities not identical and similarities not similar. Doing any Scientology standardly is not doing GAT; and non-professional co-auditing is for new people (see the issue I quoted earlier). There is nowhere that Ron says it can’t be done standardly. This isn’t an exaggerated idea of quality and it’s not forgoing getting auditing quantity up as well; it’s just doing it properly and not cutting corners or quickying, which you seem to neglect in my comments.

                      However, after session (no, I didn’t as-is you; just some charge in the area) I have a solution: As it is my hat, I will continue to push in KSW and Standard Tech from my position and perspective as a Class VIII C/S (meaning I also M9ed the entire C/S Series and KSW Series). If you find that militant, well, that’s your problem. BUT, I will no longer comment on, make fun of or be derisive towards any opinions or perspectives you hold about the Church, the CIA, FBI, DM or any of that, nor of you. Just on tech that’s pushed towards being wobbly-bobbly instead of towards being standard.

                      To quote from that HCOB you posted (The Purpose of Class VIII):

                      “To get in Standard Tech, always encourage lower level Auditors to apply standard materials, tapes, HCO Bs and books. Help them to do so. Direct them to the references.”

                      That’s all there is to it.

                    • Chris the same illogics you accuse me of committing are ones that you are committing yourself.

                      No where did I support any effort to quickie or cut corners.

                      Please quote exactly where I said this?

                      BTW I M-2ed the C/S Series and Basic Scientology books.

                      So there.

                      Also it’s nice that you aren’t going to be so derisive about my “conspiracy theories” (based on various PLs,Sec Dirs, REDs GO and recorded lectures etc.) since it makes communication somewhat easier when the person receiving it isn’t being a dick.

                      But that doesn’t relieve you of any right to make accusations about me based purely on your own subjective opinion and what you have gleaned from my comments.

                      Also I have no objection to your “always encourag(ing) lower level Auditors to apply standard materials, tapes, HCO Bs and books. Help them to do so. Direct them to the references.”

                      As long as it doesn’t include invalidative or evaluative comment that could be construed as invalidation which is also part of the HCOB you’ve quoted back to me.

                      I encourage it!

                      The problem we are facing is that we have a lot of people who are in the field who need auditing and training.

                      How are we going to accomplish this without an Org with a Course Room and an HGC?

                      While keeping the Tech Standard?

                      You got any ideas? On how it can be done? Instead of just how it shouldn’t be done?

                      I mean according to policy. We shouldn’t even be doing what we are doing.

                      For instance per policy Advanced Levels are per policy only supposed to delivered at an AO.

                      Levels training is only supposed to be done in a Class IV Org with an Academy. This is covered in the PL on Org Services.

                      At some point we are going to have to establish some organizational structure here.

                      Either by retaking the Org or forming a new one.

                      You got any ideas on that big guy?

  3. Oh, isn’t this a pickle?

    We apparently have two versions of the same issue, the presenters of which don’t cite any “RA”s, “RB”s, but one of which was issued with the assistance of Ron’s Technical Research and Revision Committee (RTRC, earlier RTC). I don’t have a copy of either one of these in my paper files and my red vols date to 1979, just before this issue came out.

    Let me make a point here. I have no brief against RTRC. There was certainly a need for such an entity. And from what I’ve read, it conducted itself in accordance with LRH’s wishes. There is an idea in the Field that it was corrupted to do the bidding of folks like Miscavige. I can’t speak to the truth of that, but I’m willing to believe that at some point it probably did happen. The problem is whether it happened in this case or not. Also Chris points to David Mayo as a potential source of corruption for this issue. I also don’t have a brief either way on Mayo. So I don’t automatically see him as a corrupting influence, though he may have been. I have no evidence either way. It’s also worth noting that the edits which omitted material from the second version were at the direction of Ron. In other words, the second version could have been the result of Ron editing out material earlier issued by others. Lastly, let me point out that, just because Miscavige had his hands on something, does not mean it is necessarily corrupted. He corrupted a lot of things. Did he corrupt this particular thing? I have no evidence either way.

    The prior, theoretically un-tainted issue makes the point that Orgs are not authorized to do/assist non-professional co-audits for the public (they are, though, for staff). Ron advocates instead the professional route for co-audits in Orgs, which is understandable. The latter (RTRC-assisted) issue talks about RIDIDI in the context of staff co-audits, not public co-audits.

    For the Field, and specifically field practices, missions and individuals, little is said in the either issue, other than a general endorsement of the idea of co-audits. Thus, whether they are done on an RIDIDI basis is also left hanging. My opinion is that, if you can find a C/S willing to supervise such a co-audit, you would be free to do it. At the same time, I would encourage participants to study any needed materials with an idea of “Why?”. In other words, you’re reading these commands, drilling them, and doing them. I’d also ask (and I usually do) “Why” these particular commands and what theory underlies them. You may not get the full materials of the level, but you will get the theory behind the level and the commands. Your C/S should be willing to provide or point out references for this, for a fee.

    Again, the preferred method is as Chris suggests. Do your co-audit as you do your levels, becoming a professional as you get the auditing of the level.

    To Lana and Chris: I believe I’ve correctly summarized the specific points I wished to cover about these issues. If you believe otherwise, please requote for me whatever passages you believe I’ve missed or skipped.


    • Paul,

      Frankly I am in total agreement with Chris recommending that anyone who wants to co-audit actually study the materials related to the rundown or level they are going to audit.

      I mean for the average student. The ’78 Levels checksheets shouldn’t take more then 2 weeks each to complete.

      Also regarding anything revised by RTRC. Who we know was to a greater degree responsible for the abomination known as GAT.

      I suggest applying the HCOB/PL How to Defeat Verbal Tech.

      Even before Miscavige become “COB RTC”. They were doing bat shit crazy shit like issuing the whole Auditors Admin Series with were mostly BTBs as “HCOBs” and various BOTWO materials that obscured the actual source.

      Regarding Mayo. I was one of the people who wrote reports on his squirrelly out-tech actions and even wrote to Ron about the fact that he nixed Pro TRs as part of Auditor Training.

      Anyone who had to read his mind numbing “HCOB” on “C/Sing” the HRD would have come to the conclusion that Mayo was growing a big bushy tail. Especially if they had any idea what Standard Tech was. Many of the Unusual Solutions he proposed for “handling” cases were right off the fuckin’ wall.

      That is my uncensored opinion of Mayo.

      That and the fact that it was him who was directly responsible for removing the Original OT Levels from the Grade Chart.

      Really doesn’t put him in my good books.

      As far as RTRC. Originally they’re hat was *compilations* only. It was only after the Ol’man departed that “Research” was included as part of their hat.

      What a bunch of losers!

      It took ’em over a decade to release KTL/LOC and two for that bastardization known as “Super Power”. Two rundowns that along with Super Power were both already on the drawing board and pretty much ready for export via NWC back in the early ’80’s.

      Never mind the OT Levels above VIII that M&M claim don’t exist but have existed since the early ’70’s in note form which they will probably never get around to releasing.

      As far as I’m concerned if there ever is a Comm Ev on this mess.

      They’d be interested parties. Along with Dave and his invisible Board at RTC and any directors at CST who failed to act when it was obvious that the Church of Scientology and the Religion of Scientology were no longer “co-terminal”.

      • Well, I do not think that there is any OT levels above new OTVIII. It’s an invention of MIscavige. And Mayo wasn’t that bad, he helped LRH to developpe Not’s,and was auditing him. Of course, on the long run, he might have done worst than Miscavige after all.

        • An “invention of MIscavige”.

          I suggest reading HCOBs Scientology and Dianetics Current State of Materials and Tech Correction Round Up.

          Also if you think Mayo “wasn’t that bad” then read the HCOB Mixing Major Rundowns and Repair.

          As far as I’m concerned Miscavige is just a front man for an actual conspiracy which has seized control of the Church.

          BTW it was Mayo who removed the original OT Levels from the current Grade Chart used at the Church.

          Don’t you think its strange that while accusing Mayo of being a “squirrel”. They keep the Grade Chart he modified in force?

  4. Having trained and done the training myself, and reading over these various comments, I think it would be fair to say that the CENTRAL idea here is:

    One CAN DO relatively simple training and then get in session and move forward to a better existence.

    A good run through TRs to a skill with the comm cycle and understanding of the Auditing Cycle. A run through meter drills checked by somebody that can operate one. Then depending on case levels, the checksheets are available and are designed to be able to be done by an individual progressing along at his rate to a pretty smooth arrival at that first “This is the session!” and voila – gains are rampant.

    I trained auditors at about 2-3 weeks per Acad Level and then got auditing by those same auditors to go up the Grades.

    The CENTRAL idea is it CAN be done. All it needs is doing and the self propelling to do it.

    I’m sure we who have done it and now have the professional skills are willing to help others and that’s a reality.

    • That’s it exactly, Jim. I think I was trying to say that; I hope I was saying that – not quite so succinctly in the insanity of it all – but that was the CENTRAL theme. Thank you for being clear-headed, and exterior to our inanity. 😉

      • Hey I resemble that remark 😉

        Anyway I agree Jimbo.

        Ya could say that there are a few diamonds in all that rough 🙂

        They wouldn’t need to learn how to use a meter in the beginning.

        TRs and Objectives or the HQS Course.

        Also all the metering drills are on the Levels courses.

        (BTW this why anyone who hasn’t done the levels has to do them five times i.e. one time for each level on the Solo Course.)

        Another thing is the “old”, “not used” as in “historical”, “background data” meter drills books compiled by Mary Sue had the E-meter drills as required for each level. So one didn’t get stuck on the endless loop of trying to do EM 25 to a pass before taking their PC in to session to run ARC S/W.

        Remember that the old Dianetics Course of April 66 didn’t require that the student knew how to use the meter before taking it into session.

        Anyways minor as Ron says in one of his Reds “icky picky points” (although the ones he was discussing weren’t all that “icky picky” and was saying it to be facetious) but you get the idea.

        The important thing as Lana says. Is to get co-auditing going and get people winning again. Instead of just wining 🙂

  5. Chris and Robin, I am stunned that you have both taken up a whole thread, bickering back and forth about who is right and who is wrong. You are both right actually and you have both been trying to have the last word in an endless conversation that has distracted from the actual simplicity of this thread — co-auditing.

    The article states it is a smart way to get auditing. It gives the LRH data that is should be done under the guidance of a trained C/S and as per the LRH Grade Chart. It gives the importance of mutual out ruds, and it also does not state that people should quickey, squirrel or do a crap job of auditing each other. TRs are key. Metering is important. Basics are vital — but all of this can be achieved in the field, if WE work to set up the needed lines so people can get auditing.

    So Robin — help us to get some TRs and drilling workshops in Texas.

    And Chris, please help us to do the same in Canada.

    Let’s help people to get auditing. No more squabbling please.

    • I understand what you’re saying, Lana. Jim was able to distill out the central idea, which I guess we were both attempting to arrive at. I think.

      To give some background (briefly), I’ve been “out here” for over 15 years, involved on many levels and in many ways with the tech, Scientology, etc. I “arrived” out here because I fought back against GAT and out-tech and technical degrades occurring in the CoS and as a result, lost most everything except my integrity. In all that time, the hardest thing I’ve had to cope with is getting people to understand that one doesn’t need to short cut Scientology in order to HAVE Scientology; one doesn’t need to alter it or muck about with it or otherwise lessen its effectiveness. It works quite well as Ron devised it.

      But I can say without doubt that Ron’s percentages in KSW are quite correct out here. The insanity that exists and is justified in order to have the one-shot Clear, or the checksheet with one item on it, is enormous. The continual shopping around for cheap alternatives; the horrendous auditing I’ve seen; the railing against and minimizing of KSW; the constant degradation of Scientology – it’s one constant that I push back against. It’s also something Ron had to constantly fight against (see KSW Series).

      I have helped many not only get auditing, but also training. I’ve supported efforts to get people trained. I myself showed how it could be done by traveling the breadth of North America to go get training in a standard course room. I also fought and clawed and worked hard to get up the Bridge, not short-cutting anything on the way, so I do know whereof I speak. So when I see what appears to be efforts or rationalizations to short-change training – and consequently auditing – as a Class VIII, I get my dander up. My apologies for letting my zeal devolve into any form of bickering or squabbling.

      As I have always stated openly, even under attacks (which are again happening), I am here to help anyone that truly wants to move up the Bridge.

      I’ll close with two quotes from LRH I think are important. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but I’m in the pulpit right now, so I’ll preach. 😀

      With ARC

      “Purpose only becomes real when it gets to the blood, sweat and tears, stage, you know? You have to suffer a little bit. If there’s no suffering involved at all, nobody knows he’s experiencing anything.

      Another thing that’s quite interesting about such an activity, it always requires a certain amount of sacrifice – always requires a certain amount of sacrifice – whether of time or of personal interest or even personal possessions, some slight degree.

      A big game always requires some sacrifice.” LRH (“Today’s Battle of Britain, 8 October 1956)

      “In order to make Scientology work, it is necessary to hold a standard and this standard must be held very relentlessly. And unless all the actions and all the various techniques applied can be held to a standard of rendition, then Scientology doesn’t work; Scientology doesn’t work if it’s badly done. In other words, the disciplines of Scientology are fully as important as the thoughts or discoveries of Scientology.” LRH

        • As trained Tech people, we are navigating our way through a situation, with oddball things as you describe in the field even odder at times than I could imagine and outrageous arbitraries and alterations from DM on the other side of this picture.

          Nevertheless, a sort of cadre of reliable delivery terminals is making its way through and do exist to help others get the actual attainable results.

          I study every day to hone my own skills and KRC. I audit routinely and have the postulate that others can and will get the gains I myself have experienced in spades.

          Those reading this blog that are stuck or not sure how to get going hopefully will get the message – it CAN be done and is being done and there are those that are more than willing to help get the gains that sound application of the materials can and do attain.

          • Well said, Jim. Couldn’t agree more. And this is pure truth and theta:

            “Nevertheless, a sort of cadre of reliable delivery terminals is making its way through and do exist to help others get the actual attainable results.”

            Glad to be part of “The Group” again. 😀

            • I’m glad you’re there too!

              Most, if not all, of the Techies I know that have seen the results personally, are really some of the sincerest beings there are.

              Auditing results are a group effort, carried out by individuals that work together to get the results.

              Even though we all may be separated by distances, the standard lines can exist. For example, crammings can be sent to others when one finds instances requiring a sharpening of skills. The idea of help extending from each of us to the others rather than chopping up or denigration among the group members.

              We have something that is invaluable – a standard issued in writing and on tapes. Using that as the agreement, then our own Qual hats worn to help each other will win through.

          • Jim I like what you said. I was getting auditing in the field on not’s. Really ok. But the wins didn’t stay. It was missing the third dyn spirit. It’s a third dyn game and it’s verydifficukt to play when we are too few.

            • FG, I know exactly what you’re saying about the 3rd Dynamic spirit. I miss it, too. But the few of us who hold the line will ensure a future for us all.

              Being truth, Scientology has a tendency to as-is, and in his way, LRH made sure that the tech will survive, with his books, legacy, and putting his neck out. He won’t be forgotten in a hurry, and we will re-unite in the blink of an eye; not because of him, but because the tech works, and that means you and me and everyone here. And I know personally, many, many folk who are eager to continue on the bridge but are keeping their head down for now.

              The CoS, governments, and vested interests may have a little giggle just now, but the desire by ordinary folk for spiritual liberation is way, way bigger than them all; we know this by talking to everyday people on an everyday street. For sure, science shouts loudly in the West, but as LRH says, they are the Johnny-come-latelys. They can’t think outside the box.

              The prospects for us are fantastic.

              • “Being truth, Scientology has a tendency to as-is”
                Yes that’s right. One need the melting pot of viewpoint and the effort to coordinate.
                Some ex scientologist protest some rules. Of course under Miscavige leadership rules are arbitraries. But no rules, no barriers is no game. And then auditing become oriented first Dyn. Basically below clear. When you audit not’s with a first D viewpoint it looses the game of freeing beings. Scientology is a huge adventure. The ideal scene was around 1978/1980 and then it went down with highly authoritarian attitude which were of purpose with a hidden agenda. But in the independant field now it’s too slack. It’s vnishing from both side. The COS being a money regging machine and really a cult with disconnection (like Mormon, Amish, Jehovah witness cult cult) like if scientology was not a cult but became one. And outside, KSW viewpoint considered like fanatism.

                • I agree FG.

                  I mean the GO could get pretty authoritarian at times but nothing compared to some of the arrogant assholes on SO Missions.

                  Seems they coheased into one big authoritarian mass in the early ’80’s with things like SRAs, Gang Bang “Sec Checking” and that whole Mission Massacre which was nothing but extortion by any other name.

                  Hated Clinton when he was in office but when H took over I was nostalgic for Clinton.

                  Same with the GO.

                  Yeah sure they had they’re faults.

                  Like breaking into Government offices but personally I didn’t think it was bad as the new regime was making it out to be.

                  In fact looking back. Their ire was somewhat hypocritical in many ways.

                  Anyway like many things what they were doing never affected me directly and if it did there was always SO #1.

                  But yeah I get it.

                  The 3D was getting so aberrated that it was turning into a *Cult* with a capital C which included a megalomanic “leader” who as far as I was concerned was Jimmy Jones lite with a bunch of Layton like enablers hidden in the background.

                  No Jonestown.

                  Well maybe not.

                  But remember that the Peoples Temple was 501ciii as well.

                  At some point we’re going to have this whole group thing. Get some kind of 3rd D going again.

                  Maybe we can start out small in the beginning and avoid turning into the monster the so called Church of Scientology has become.

                  • Yup: applying for an FOI and getting redacted bs in return. The British are as bad as anything that went before. Calling oneself ‘Government’ means nothing. Exactly right: “Peoples Temple was 501ciii as well.”

                    The British and American governments of the 70’s were the lst word in duplicity.

                    And we will get a 3D going mainly because there is nothing else going on. The hunt for planet nine? Lord, do me a favour.

                    • Hey P13c,

                      On the lighter side of getting docs through FOIA:



                      Honestly I almost gagged when Miscavige called the IRS his mutual buddies and they had stamped their Government seal of approval on the “Scientology Religion”.

                      Personally I thought the granting of 501ciii would lead to the Church going after what are called “straight donations” through the IAS since they are considered “non-tangible” and also unlike services “non-refundable” which is exactly what happened.

                      In fact the Church has been on a big GI push ever since. Supported by a few elitist. Some with some very unsavory connections and others involved in various “white collar crimes” like the Feshbachs, Greta Van Susteren and her Money, Guns and Lawyers husband John Coale.

                      Not to mention Tom the Scientology Cruise Missile or their association with CIA’s top gun runner, Iran/Contra alumni and contributor to the BCCI scandal Adnan Khashoggi.

                      Never mind the narcissistic, megalomanic, lunatic,with the Napoleon complex and likely unwitting agent of the dark side “leading” this den of inequity with his band of squirrels from RTRC busily altering the tech into complete unworkability.

                      Now there’s a group one can proudly be a part of 😉


                      Planet X or 9 or whatever. How anyone could claim that astronomers for centuries have missed a planet the size of Neptune proves that the so called “scientific community” has lost its mental balance and their heads are spinning like the Lawrence cyclotron 🙂

                      And these nut jobs in the media think we’re crazy because we “believe” in the existence of extraterrestrial life while embracing any pronouncement by these authoritarian loony tunes as the Godspell truth.

      • “It works quite well as Ron devised it.”

        I’ve always said that big guy.

        Besides I’m just too damn lazy to be “inventive” 🙂

        Seriously though Ron says himself that it ain’t perfect right there in Safeguarding Technology.

        I’m thinking that a lot of this squirreling especially GAS (Golden Age Squirreling) is some insane effort to “perfect” the tech.

        For instance the reason why RTRC added running Justifications to rudiments was to get a bigger send.

        Gimme a fricken’ break.

        One doesn’t run rudiments to get a send or a win on the PC. They are run to F/N per Flying Ruds and Ruds Defs and Patter so you get the send on the major process or processes.

        Another idiocy is on the question “Has anything been misunderstood?” on the LIC. The squirrels in the “research” department changed the handling from itsa earl sim itsa like it says in the instructions to finding a mis-u word!

        I mean there all kinds of squirrelly additives to those “drills” that I wrote up way back which would throw a curve into tech application which would seem so “reasonable” that it was insidiously more destructive then just obvious squirreling like Skype “auditing”.

        So getting back to main point.

        The tech ain’t perfect but it *works* unlike the “perfected” “tech” that doesn’t.

    • Roger that Lana.

      Actually I’m two states over in Cali where OSA is thicker than thieves right now.

      Hopefully Merrell can run some inference for us with his Religious Liberty League because obviously we are making some headway if the squirrels over at the 501ciii Squirrel Group are screaming 😉

      But yeah you’re right Chris and I seem to argue basically about nothing.

      I mean you look over our comments we’re basically saying the same thing in a different way.

      Chris is just more of a zealot for standard tech which he should be being a Class VIII.

      Ain’t nothin’ wrong with that 😉

      Anyway I agree with you Lana. We gotta get some co-auditing going and training some auditors while doing that.

      I mean we’ve got pretty much what we need as far as materials including Ron’s Model Sessions.

      In other words our WIAC is pretty much in with the exception of a stable course room.

      We had one in Northridge but that one went full Robertson “tech” and another one in Lancaster. But as far as I know. That one isn’t currently operational.

      There’s a couple of Field Auditors running some type of mobile operation mainly for Solo One and Two.

      And I have a friend who’s a excellent course supervisor who runs a Public Course Room out of his apartment that I’ve used for green PCs who runs basic courses like the Comm Course and HQS.

      But the fact is that we need something more permanent and less transitory.

      One that Scientologists can get to with a tough course supe like Jimbo so that they know they’re being *trained* and would rather see them dead then incapable 🙂

      In meantime.

      There are lots of things that Scientologists can do to get some wins.

      There’s SA, Hand Book for PCs, Book One, Lock Scanning, Effort Processing etc covered in the earlier books and PABs and in the Intro and Assist Processes.

      Even processes one can run on themselves.

      One can even grab a twin and do the Purif per Clear Body Clear Mind.

      The cost of getting an infra-red sauna or building one per the bulletins would be less then buying it at the Org.

      Sure one doesn’t get the cute lil’ purif uniform and get their vitamins from a high tech dispensary but they’ll get basically the same result 😉

      Personally I’d be happy as a clam if all I had to do as a VI is do nothing but review actions for co-auditors who were auditing one another and leave the grunt work of auditing the grades up to them.

      Just a suggestion but maybe we could start by rekindling some failed purposes out there of getting up the Bridge per the PL on OT Orgs.

      I know people who have tried and tried for years and….didn’t even get on the Grades.

      For instance I had one case who I audited way back when I was a fully licensed I-BETRAY auditor who I sent onto CCI who bought a full training package there and never went any further up the Bridge from where he last was when he got there.

  6. Thanks Chris and Robin for your detailed responses.

    We are on the same page, and planet – and I am glad of it.

    Let’s look at how we can facilitate getting people moving – not just one by one with professional auditing, but also by helping people to help themselves with co-audits. It is a long term program that if set up with lines and terminals, in accord with LRH bulletins, will make ALL the difference in the field.


    • Hey like I said Lana.

      I’d be quite happy if all I had to do was patch up co-auditors.

      When I was on the Briefing Course way back. We had a Theory, Practical and an auditing/co-auditing Supervisor.

      Also as I was saying there are books and PABs out there where one can co-audit and even self-audit certain actions and even do a Purif without any of the above.

      There is also the VMH (not the Scientologist Squirrel Book) that has some basic stuff like TRs and Assists.

      Also the Intro and Demo Processes.

      All that can be used as holding actions until we get actual Standard Co-Audits going in areas that are easily accessible.

      There are probably a bunch of trained auditors out there who because they “didn’t have a case” who are probably at the bottom of the Grade Chart and could use our divine guidance.

      They could scan their worksheets ARFs and proposed C/Ses and send them off to one of our C/Ses who can Grade the session and send back an Instruct or a Cram that can be done with the help of one of our cramming officers etc.

      Something like that.

      In meantime while we figure out how to set up training centers etc.

      Just an idea.

  7. And a good idea it is, RV. Yours and Chris’s and Lana’s suggestions are dynamite. However, for my part, in my neck of the woods, getting people interested in their cases is hard enough. Just the lightest of light processes brings incredible, unbelievable results on my Joe Public. How I would love to hand them an easy book at that point. Man! Nevertheless, I know I’ve brightened someone’s day, and they know there is something there. It’s better than nothing. Right now, I have to concentrate on entry-level Scientology, Child Dianetics and basic assists. I don’t want to ARCX my people. In due course, I expect to meet local ex-CoS people and start up a co-audit; there are sure to be some.

    My lines are open. First an old-fashioned HAS, then an HQS, and after that – a co-audit to the stars!

    Richard Kaminski

    • Hi Richard,

      I recommend Scientology 0 for new public.

      Also there are some real nice undercuts in Intro & Demo Processes.

      BTW aside from the dearly loved HAS TRs Course or Comm Course was the HAS Co-audit.

      Back in the day when we ran the Test Eval Script. We used to pack ’em into the Basic Course room with that one 🙂

    • Hey you’re welcome P13.

      The advantage of the HAS Co-audit is that the actions can be done without a meter.

      (For those who’re meter-phobic 😉 )

      Personally I recommend getting one off E-Bay, Amazon or where ever and getting familiar with it.

      Play catch with it. Grab some people and do a pinch test with it. Just like it says in the original Book Introducing the E-Meter.

      At some point every Scientologist who wants to get any farther then the lower levels is going to have to get one.

      So to quote Janis Joplin “Get it while you can.”

      Though I don’t think she was singing about e-meters 😉

  8. Thanks, RV. Yay, I remember the days of pinch tests and simple date/locate demos. We even put a house plant on the cans and had it talk to us. Yes definitely, a meter is essential, even for word-clearing. I’ve got two Mk VIs, so I’m a bit behind the times. I’ve taken note of what Chris said earlier about meters. There’s no question I’m a big fan of the lily-white meter: there are few joys as magnificent as when the auditor says, ‘Your needle is floating. Put down the cans.’ It took a long time to unshackle myself from the CoS, mainly because I thought they were, despite the oddities, carrying Ron’s purpose. No, they’re not. And so it’s to my embarrassment that it’s taken so long for me to pick up the auditor hat. Helping someone to a cognition is just about the most exquisite feeling I know of.

    • P13c

      A Mark VI is all you need to audit any level of the Grade Chart.

      Personally I think a lot of the problem with “Scientology” as delivered in the Org and the society is a fixation on the “newest and latest”.

      Ron back in ’70’s in asked the question in the RED “Why Something New?”

      He also discusses this point in C/S Series 2.

      This probably among other reasons explains the constant alter-is of the materials by the Church and is an explanation for what was known as “Quickie Grades”.

      Ron had just released the major processes for each Grade known at the time as “Triples”.

      The idea was to run these processes after all the processes related to that level were run. But a bunch of auditors and C/Ses somehow got the idea triples “canceled” all lower grades processes and that one just ran those and the rest as they say is history.

      Anyway regarding the meter. Contrary to all the hoopla. The Mark Super VII isn’t really much of an improvement over the VI other than the cool and groovy LED TA position read out which is nice but unneeded.

      Forget about the Quantum. Since the variable Sen is not based on mass as they claim but actually resistance and therefore can get one into trouble by taking “reads” which actually at lower resistance would be ticks.

      Also because the sen lowers during a Blow Down it may obscure F/Ns after a BD.

      That and the fact that both the Super VII and Quantum needle is easily affected by static electricity.

      I’ve used all the above models and prefer the VI myself.

      Plus the V is still a good meter for lower levels.

      Forget about what I call the Mk-Ultra since it is loaded up with spyware provided by the Church to keep all I-Help auditors in line.

      This horse pucky about plugging it in to your computer to run diagnostics and repair is just that.

      In order to properly diagnose any standardly built E-meter one has to physically inspect the actual components.

      Probably the reason they tell auditors to do this is so they can load up more spyware or maybe upgrade it.

      Anyway that’s my opinion of meters. Based on my own observation of the scene.

      Hope it helps.

    • Hi Poet 13c,

      I’ve audited years and thousands of hours on Mk Vs, VIs and VIIs (including the Quantum) and find all workable. There’s no problem with the VII and Quantum in regards to reads and other than the sensitivity boosting and no way to turn that function off, it’s a good meter. I’ve never had an FN obscured by a BD on a VII unless I’ve fiddled too much with the TA. I’ve never had any problem with the needle either. In fact, I find the needle more sensitive that the VI and thus better able to pick up those reads. But try some out if you can, or read some reviews on the net. And as mentioned earlier, the Ability and the Clarity meters are fine meters in their own right. But I’m sure you can find some good Mk VIs and VIIs on eBay or other places on the ‘net. And at a good price! Work with what you feel comfortable with and what you can afford. Just don’t use some “biofeedback” meter like I’ve seen some do! lol

      • Chris,

        The reason I don’t trust any meter other then the VI is due to the following from E-meter Essentials in the section under Frailties:

        10. Squirrel meters or home-built meters may be right or wrong but they are noted for inaccurate needle behavior. Some don’t show bops because the Potentiometer used was too cheap.

        Some register a half a second or a second late on questions. Some are so lightly needled that they register everything they can. I only trust meter types I’ve checked out myself, making sure they register the preclear, not the local TV antennae. Cheap meters at cut rates usually prove to be very expensive in the long run. I developed the present E-Meter with hundreds of tests and expert assistance and I know how wrong a meter design can go.

        Particularly the above as in “(s)ome are so lightly needled that they register everything they can.” Could be applied to both the Quantum and Super VII.

        From my own personal experience both of them are a bitch to get a C/S 53 to an F/Ning list because the needle was too light to have the “momentum” covered in the HCOB on F/Ning Lists.

        Also I’ve seen F/Ns swallowed up after BDs on the Quantum with very little play on the TA especially if it was a “Fleeting F/N”.

        Also as Ron says in HCO BULLETIN OF 28 DECEMBER 1961

        I have my own additional moral to the story. If I didn’t do the actual research on something, it’s liable to be a miss.

        As far as I know neither the Mk Super VII or the Quantum are based on Ron’s original research in E-meter design. Unlike the VI which was according to RJ 28.

        My view.

        Then again milage may vary for others.

        Also I don’t know about these other meters but again as Ron says in the above section again:

        10. Squirrel meters or home-built meters may be right or wrong but they are noted for inaccurate needle behavior. Some don’t show bops because the Potentiometer used was too cheap.
        Some register a half a second or a second late on questions. Some are so lightly needled that they register everything they can. I only trust meter types I’ve checked out myself, making sure they register the preclear, not the local TV antennae. Cheap meters at cut rates usually prove to be very expensive in the long run. I developed the present E-Meter with hundreds of tests and expert assistance and I know how wrong a meter design can go.

        Besides from what I got from reading P13c’s comment he already had two Mk VI’s. A *standard* E-meter design officially approved by the Ol’man himself.

        Why on Earth would you recommend anything else?

        • I think that reference (EME) is from 1961, isn’t it? I think meters changed quite a bit since 1961.

          As you say, “As far as I know…” Much of what you say is your own conjecture, your own experience. Me and the VIIIs I know who use VIIs and Quantums, have no issues with them or getting a 53 to an F/Ning list.

          “Why on Earth would you recommend anything else?”

          Why not? You don’t think meter technology changes? (N.B., NOT processes, circuit technology.) E-Meters have changed a lot since Mathieson’s early meters, hey?

          Re the other meters, they’re not home-built. And what’s squirrel these days?

          As I said, I’d prefer a VII over a Quantum, but just as well, over a VI as well. Sorry, that’s my take on it.

          • I disagree.

            As far as I’ve seen technology reaches a certain optimum point and many cases backslides.

            Think cars that have the latest technology which are easy to hack.

            Or meters that use current computer technology that have glitches and delays caused by undelivered packets.

            All I can say is lucky you regarding F/Ning lists. I didn’t get the same raves from the VIIIs I knew.

            Also back in ’61 wasn’t talking about Mathison’s main lines meters but ones which had the latest in solid state technology at the time which really hasn’t changed all that much.

            Maybe smaller capacitors and resisters but not much else.

            Also the VI is a fine meter. Just like the V.

            It works!

            Sure it’s not perfect.

            But again.

            It works.

            In my opinion better then the “newest and latest” devised by that squirrel pit calling itself the “Church of Scientology”.

            • “I disagree.”

              That’s alright. As you have seen, I often disagree with you, too. 😉

              “As far as I’ve seen technology reaches a certain optimum point and many cases backslides.”

              Ok. As I said, you’re take on things.

              “Think cars that have the latest technology which are easy to hack.”

              Not the same thing at all.

              “Or meters that use current computer technology that have glitches and delays caused by undelivered packets.”

              I agree with you on this. *Gasp!* (Although I do reserve the right to change my mind if technology shifts adequately in the future.)

              “All I can say is lucky you regarding F/Ning lists. I didn’t get the same raves from the VIIIs I knew.”

              Not luck, skill. And I guess we’re talking to different VIIIs – most VIIIs I know are auditing with Quantums or VIIs.

              “Also back in ’61 wasn’t talking about Mathison’s main lines meters but ones which had the latest in solid state technology at the time which really hasn’t changed all that much.

              Maybe smaller capacitors and resisters but not much else.”

              I used Mathieson as an example; I know his meters weren’t in use in ’61. And I disagree (see, there I go!) that solid state and circuitry technology hasn’t changed much since 1961, some 55 years ago!

              “Also the VI is a fine meter. Just like the V.”

              I like the V. Not the VI. Again, personal preferences.

              “It works!”


              “Sure it’s not perfect.”

              Again, yup.

              “In my opinion better then the « newest and latest » devised by that squirrel pit calling itself the « Church of Scientology ».”

              I agree. (Again; score, two vs. one.)


              • We could go around & around in circles here for the sake of argument here.

                All I can say is that we knew different VIIIs.

                Some of the one’s I knew did the original VIII on the RSM and weren’t all that stoked by the VI even.

                Sorta like Shovel Heads compared to Evos.

                For an analogy.


                I test rode one that was signed off by the Ol’man and it was love at first sight.

                Can’t say the same about the Super VII or that %#$$@ Quantum piece of &%## that I was forced to do the ^*&## GAT VI (un)certainty course with.

                So I guess it’s a matter of taste 🙂

  9. Fabulous comments guys, really appreciated, it makes a difference.

    I appreciate the Mk VII and the Indie meters will be a step up in class.

    I went Clear with an Dn auditor completing her HSDC using a Mk VI; and LRH built the Bridge (Grade Chart Lecture) and everything else along the way with one. That 10-year period between the Mk V and the Mk VII happened to be one of fantastic expansion. I’m not attributing the decline to the Mk VII, far from it.

    I believe there were two versions of the Mk VI, an American and a British one, made by different manufacturers. Whatever the difference, we had a boom based on basic auditor skills: the meter was made of wood, as was the pc’s brain, LOL!

    The original bridge (Grade Chart Lecture) up to NOTs was delivered using a Mk VI. It seems to me that the MK VII and today’s super-duper meters might be the choice of the more accomplished auditor who gets fewer flubs and a better PC return ratio.

    Whichever way we go, the future looks great for auditors and students and PC’s at every level.

    As Robin points out, we don’t actually need a meter at the lowest levels (where I live). After a while though, I’m going to need to say, that, that, that…

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s