      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



     HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER 1964



Remimeo

Franchise

Sthil Students





           STYLES OF AUDITING



  Note 1: Most old-time auditors, particularly Saint

  Hill graduates, have been trained at one time or

  another in these auditing styles. Here they are

  given names and assigned to levels so that they

  can be taught more easily and so that general

  auditing can be improved.



  Note 2: These have not been written before because

  I had not determined the results vital to each level.





There is a style of auditing for each class. By style is meant a 

method or custom of performing actions.



A style is not really determined by the process being run so 

much. A style is how the auditor addresses his task.



Different processes carry different style requirements perhaps, 

but that is not the point. Clay Table Healing at Level III can be 

run with Level I style and still have some gains. But an auditor 

trained up to the style required at Level III would do a better 

job not only of Clay Table Healing but of any repetitive process.



Style is how the auditor audits. The real expert can do them all, 

but only after he can do each one. Style is a mark of class. It 

is not individual. In our meaning, it is a distinct way to handle 

the tools of auditing.



                LEVEL 0

             LISTEN STYLE



At Level 0 the style is listen-style auditing. Here the auditor 

is expected to listen to the pc. The only skill necessary is 

listening to another. As soon as it is ascertained that the 

auditor is listening (not just confronting or ignoring), the 

auditor can be checked out. The length of time an auditor can 

listen without tension or strain showing could be a factor. What 

the pc does is not a factor considered in judging this style. 

Pcs, however, talk to an auditor who is really listening.



Here we have the highest point that old-time mental therapies 

reached (when they did reach it), such as psychoanalysis, when 

they helped anyone. Mostly they were well below this, evaluating, 

invalidating, interrupting. These three things are what the 

Instructor in this style should try to put across to the HAS 

student.



Listen style should not be complicated by expecting more of the 

auditor than just this: Listen to the pc without evaluating, 

invalidating or interrupting.



Adding on higher skills like "Is the pc talking interestingly? or 

even "Is the pc talking?" is no part of this style. When this 

auditor gets in trouble and the pc won't talk or isn't 

interested, a higher-classed auditor is called in, a new question 

given by the Supervisor, etc.



It really isn't "itsa" to be very technical. Itsa is the action 

of the pc saying "It's a this" or "It's a that." Getting the pc 

to itsa is quite beyond listen-style auditors, where the pc 

won't. It's the Supervisor or the question on the blackboard that 

gets the pc to itsa.



The ability to listen, learned well, stays with the auditor up 

through the grades. One doesn't cease to use it even at Level VI. 

But one has to learn it somewhere and that's at Level 0. So 

listen-style auditing is just listening. It thereafter adds into 

the other styles.



               LEVEL I

          MUZZLED AUDITING



This could also be called rote-style auditing.



Muzzled auditing has been with us many years. It is the stark 

total of TRs 0 to 4 and not anything else added.



It is called so because auditors too often added in comments, Q-

and-Aed, deviated, discussed and otherwise messed up a session. 

Muzzle meant a "muzzle was put on them," figuratively speaking, 

so they would only state the auditing command and ack.



Repetitive command auditing, using TRs 0 to 4, at Level I is done 

completely muzzled.



This could be called muzzled repetitive auditing style but will 

be called "muzzled style" for the sake of brevity.



It has been a matter of long experience that pcs who didn't make 

gains with the partially trained auditor permitted to two-way 

comm did make gains the instant the auditor was muzzled: to wit, 

not permitted to do a thing but run the process, permitted to say 

nothing but the commands and acknowledge them and handle pc 

originations by simple acknowledgment without any other question 

or comment.



At Level I we don't expect the auditor to do anything but state 

the command (or ask the question) with no variation, acknowledge 

the pc's answer and handle the pc origins by understanding and 

acknowledging what the pc said.



Those processes used at Level I actually respond best to muzzled 

auditing and worst to misguided efforts to "two-way comm."



Listen style combines with muzzled style easily. But watch out 

that Level I sessions don't disintegrate to Level 0.



Crisp, clean repetitive commands, muzzled, given and answered 

often, are the road out -- not pc wanderings.



A pc at this level is instructed in exactly what is expected of 

him, exactly what the auditor will do. The pc is even put through 

a few "do birds fly?" cycles until the pc gets the idea. Then the 

processing works.



An auditor trying to do muzzled repetitive auditing on a pc who, 

through past "therapy experience," is rambling on and on is a sad 

sight. It means that control is out (or that the pc never got 

above Level 0).



It's the number of commands given and answered in a unit of 

auditing time that gets gains. To that add the correctly chosen 

repetitive process and you have a Release in short order, using 

the processes of this level.



To follow limp listen style with crisp, controlled muzzled style 

may be a shock. But they are each the lowest of the two families 

of auditing styles -- totally permissive and totally controlled. 

And they are so different each is easy to learn with no 

confusion. It's been the lack of difference amongst styles that 

confuses the student into slopping about. Well, these two are 

different enough -- listen style and muzzled style -- to set 

anybody straight.



               LEVEL II

        GUIDING-STYLE AUDITING



An old-time auditor would have recognized this style under two 

separate names: (a) two-way comm and (b) formal auditing.



We condense these two old styles under one new name: guiding-

style auditing.



One first guides the pc by "two-way comm" into some subject that 

has to be handled or into revealing what should be handled and 

then the auditor handles it with formal repetitive commands.



Guiding-style auditing becomes feasible only when a student can 

do listen-style and muzzled-style auditing well.



Formerly, the student who couldn't confront or duplicate a 

command took refuge in sloppy discussions with the pc and called 

it auditing or "two-way comm."



The first thing to know about guiding style is that one lets the 

pc talk and itsa without chop, but also gets the pc steered into 

the proper subject and gets the job done with repetitive 

commands.



We presuppose the auditor at this level has had enough case gain 

to be able to occupy the viewpoint of the auditor and therefore 

to be able to observe the pc. We also presuppose at this level 

that the auditor, being able to occupy a viewpoint, is therefore 

more self-determined, the two things being related. (One can only 

be self-determined when one can observe the actual situation 

before one: otherwise, a being is delusion-determined or other-

determined.)



Thus, in guiding-style auditing the auditor is there to find out 

what's what from the pc and then apply the needful remedy.



Most of the processes in The Book of Case Remedies are included 

in this level (II). To use those, one has to observe the pc, 

discover what the pc is doing and remedy the pc's case 

accordingly.



The result for the pc is a far-reaching reorientation in life.



Thus, the essentials of guiding-style auditing consist of two-way 

comm that steers the pc into revealing a difficulty followed by a 

repetitive process to handle what has been revealed.



One does expert TRs but one may discuss things with the pc, let 

the pc talk and in general one audits the pc before one, 

establishing what that pc needs and then doing it with crisp 

repetitive auditing, but all the while alert to changes in the 

pc.



One runs at this level against tone arm action, paying little or 

no heed to the needle except as a centering device for TA 

position. One even establishes what's to be done by the action of 

the tone arm. (The process of storing up things to run on the pc 

by seeing what fell when he was running what's being run, now 

belongs at this level [II] and will be renumbered accordingly.)



At II one expects to handle a lot of chronic PTPs, overts, ARC 

breaks with life (but not session ARC breaks, that being a needle 

action, session ARC breaks being sorted out by a higher-classed 

auditor if they occur).



To get such things done (PTPs, overts and other remedies) in the 

session, the auditor must have a pc "willing to talk to the 

auditor about his difficulties." That presupposes we have an 

auditor at this level who can ask questions, not repetitive, that 

guide the pc into talking about the difficulty that needs to be 

handled.



Great command of TR 4 is the primary difference in TRs from Level 

I. One understands, when one doesn't, by asking more questions, 

and by really acknowledging only when one has really understood 

it.



Guided comm is the clue to control at this level. One should 

easily guide the pc's comm in and out and around without chopping 

the pc or wasting session time. As soon as an auditor gets the 

idea of finite result or, that is to say, a specific and definite 

result expected, all this is easy. Pc has a PTP Example: Auditor 

has to have the idea he is to locate and destimulate the PTP so 

pc is not bothered about it (and isn't being driven to do 

something about it) as the finite result.



The auditor at II is trained to audit the pc before him, get the 

pc into comm, guide the pc toward data needful to choose a 

process and then to run the process necessary to resolve that 

thing found, usually by repetitive command and always by TA.



The Book of Case Remedies is the key to this level and this 

auditing style.



One listens but only to what one has guided the pc into. One runs 

repetitive commands with good TR 4. And one may search around for 

quite a while before one is satisfied he has the answer from the 

pc needful to resolve a certain aspect of the pc's case.



O/W can be run at Level I. But at Level II one may guide the pc 

into divulging what the pc considers a real overt act and, having 

that, then guide the pc through all the reasons it wasn't an 

overt and so eventually blow it.



Half-acknowledgment is also taught at Level II -- the ways of 

keeping a pc talking by giving the pc the feeling he is being 

heard and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2.



Big or multiple acknowledgment is also taught to shut the pc off 

when the pc is going off the subject.



              LEVEL III

       ABRIDGED-STYLE AUDITING



By abridged is meant "abbreviated," shorn of extras. Any not 

actually needful auditing command is deleted.



For instance, at Level I the auditor always says, when the pc 

wanders off the subject, "I will repeat the auditing command" and 

does so. In abridged style the auditor omits this when it isn't 

necessary and just asks the command again if the pc has forgotten 

it.



In this style we have shifted from pure rote to a sensible use or 

omission as needful. We still use repetitive commands expertly, 

but we don't use rote that is unnecessary to the situation.



Two-way comm comes into its own at Level III. But with heavy use 

of repetitive commands.



At this level we have as the primary process Clay Table Healing. 

In this an auditor must make sure the commands are followed 

exactly. No auditing command is ever let go of until that actual 

command is answered by the pc.



But at the same time, one doesn't necessarily give every auditing 

command the process has in its rundown.



In Clay Table Healing one is supposed to make sure the pc is 

satisfied each time. This is done more often by observation than 

command. Yet it is done.



We suppose at III that we have an auditor who is in pretty fine 

shape and can observe. Thus, we see the pc is satisfied and don't 

mention it. Thus, we see when the pc is not certain and so we get 

something the pc is certain of in answering the question.



On the other hand, one gives all the necessary commands crisply 

and definitely and gets them executed.



Prepchecking and needle usage is taught at Level III as well as 

Clay Table Healing. Auditing by List is also taught. In abridged-

style auditing one may find the pc (being cleaned up on a list 

question) giving half a dozen answers in a rush. One doesn't stop 

the pc from doing so, one half-acknowledges and lets the pc go 

on. One is in actual fact handling a bigger auditing comm cycle, 

that is all. The question elicits more than one answer which is 

really only one answer. And when that answer is given, it is 

acknowledged.



One sees when a needle is clean without some formula set of 

questions that invalidate all the pc's relief. And one sees it 

isn't clean by the continued puzzle on the pc's face.



There are tricks involved here. One asks a question of the pc 

with the key word in it and notes that the needle doesn't 

tremble, and so concludes the question about the word is flat. 

And so doesn't check it again. Example: "Has anything else been 

suppressed?" One eye on pc, one on needle. Needle didn't quiver. 

Pc looks noncommittal. Auditor says, "All right, on______" and 

goes on to next question, eliminating a pc's possible protest 

read that can be mistaken for another "suppress."



In abridged-style auditing one sticks to the essentials and drops 

rote where it impedes case advance. But that doesn't mean one 

wanders about. One is even more crisp and thorough with abridged-

style auditing than in rote.



One is watching what happens and doing exactly enough to achieve 

the expected result.



By "abridged" is meant getting the exact job done -- the shortest 

way between two points -- with no waste questions.



By now the student should know that he runs a process to achieve 

an exact result and he gets the process run in a way to achieve 

that result in the smallest amount of time.



The student is taught to guide rapidly, to have no time for wide 

excursions. The processes at this level are all rat-a-tat-tat 

processes -- Clay Table Healing, Prepchecking, Auditing by List.



Again it's the number of times the question is answered per unit 

of auditing time that makes for speed of result.



               LEVEL IV

        DIRECT-STYLE AUDITING



By direct we mean straight, concentrated, intense, applied in a 

direct manner.



We do not mean direct in the sense of to direct somebody or to 

guide. We mean it is direct.



By direct, we don't mean frank or choppy. On the contrary, we put 

the pc's attention on his bank and anything we do is calculated 

only to make that attention more direct.



It could also mean that we are not auditing by vias. We are 

auditing straight at the things that need to be reached to make 

somebody Clear.



Other than this the auditing attitude is very easy and relaxed.



At Level IV we have Clay Table Clearing and we have assessment-

type processes.



These two types of process are both astonishingly direct. They 

are aimed directly at the reactive mind. They are done in a 

direct manner.



In Clay Table Clearing we have almost total work and itsa from 

pcs. From one end of a session to another, we may have only a few 

auditing commands. For a pc on Clay Table Clearing does almost 

all the work if he is in-session at all.



Thus, we have another implication in the word "direct." The pc is 

talking directly to the auditor about what he is making and why 

in Clay Table Clearing. The auditor hardly ever talks at all.



In assessment the auditor is aiming directly at the pc's bank and 

wants no pc in front of it thinking, speculating, maundering or 

itsaing. Thus, this assessment is a very direct action.



All this requires easy, smooth, steel-hand-in-a-velvet-glove 

control of the pc. It looks easy and relaxed as a style; it is 

straight as a Toledo blade.



The trick is to be direct in what's wanted and not deviate. The 

auditor settles what's to be done, gives the command and then the 

pc may work for a long time, the auditor alert, attentive, 

completely relaxed.



In assessment the auditor often pays no attention to the pc at 

all, as in ARC breaks or assessing lists. Indeed, a pc at this 

level is trained to be quiet during the assessment of a list.



And in Clay Table Clearing an auditor may be quiet for an hour at 

a stretch.



The tests are, Can the auditor keep the pc quiet while assessing 

without ARC breaking the pc? Can the auditor order the pc to do 

something and then, the pc working on it, can the auditor remain 

quiet and attentive for an hour, understanding everything and 

interrupt alertly only when he doesn't understand and get the pc 

to make it clearer to him? Again without ARC breaking the pc.



You could confuse this direct style with listen style if you 

merely glanced at a session of Clay Table Clearing. But what a 

difference. In listen style the pc is blundering on and on and 

on. In direct style the pc wanders off the line an inch and 

starts to itsa, let us say, with no clay work and after it was 

obvious to the auditor that this pc had forgotten the clay, you'd 

see the auditor, quick as a foil, look at the pc very 

interestedly and say, "Let's see that in clay." Or the pc doesn't 

really give an ability he wants to improve and you'd hear a quiet 

persuasive auditor voice, "Are you quite certain you want to 

improve that? Sounds like a goal to me. Just something, some 

ability you know, you'd like to improve."



You could call this style one-way auditing. When the pc is given 

his orders, after that it's all from the pc to the auditor, and 

all involved with carrying out that auditing instruction. When 

the auditor is assessing, it is all from the auditor to the pc. 

Only when the assessment action hits a snag like a PTP is there 

any other auditing style used.



This is a very extreme auditing style. It is straightforward -- 

direct.



But when needful, as in any level, the styles learned below it 

are often also employed, but never in the actual actions of 

getting Clay Table Clearing and assessment done.



(NOTE: Level V would be the same style as VI below.)



               LEVEL VI

               ALL STYLE



So far, we have dealt with simple actions.



Now we have an auditor handling a meter and a pc who itsa's and 

cognites and gets PTPs and ARC breaks and line charges and 

cognites and who finds items and lists and who must be handled, 

handled, handled all the way.



As auditing TA for a 2 1/2-hour session can go to 79 or 125 

divisions (compared to 10 or 15 for the lowest level), the pace 

of the session is greater. It is this pace that makes perfect 

ability at each lower level vital when they combine into all 

style. For each is now faster.



So, we learn all style by learning each of the lower styles well, 

and then observe and apply the style needed every time it is 

needed, shifting styles as often as once every minute!



The best way to learn all style is to become expert at each lower 

style so that one does the style correct for the situation each 

time the situation requiring that style occurs.



It is less rough than it looks. But it is also very demanding.



Use the wrong style on a situation and you've had it. ARC break! 

No progress!



Example: Right in the middle of an assessment the needle gets 

dirty. The auditor can't continue -- or shouldn't. The auditor,

in direct style, looks up to see a puzzled frown. The auditor has

to shift to guiding style to find out what ails the pc (who

probably doesn't really know), then to listen style while the pc

cognites on a chronic PTP that just emerged and bothered the pc,

then to direct style to finish the assessment that was in

progress.



The only way an auditor can get confused by all style is by not 

being good at one of the lower-level styles.



Careful inspection will show where the student using all style is 

slipping. One then gets the student to review that style that was 

not well learned and practice it a bit.



So all style, when poorly done, is very easy to remedy for it 

will be in error on one or more of the lower-level styles. And as 

all these can be independently taught, the whole can be 

coordinated. All style is hard to do only when one hasn't 

mastered one of the lower-level styles.



               SUMMARY



These are the important styles of auditing. There have been 

others but they are only variations of those given in this HCO 

Bulletin. Tone 40 style is the most notable one missing. It 

remains as a practice style at Level I to teach fearless body 

handling and to teach one to get his command obeyed. It is no 

longer used in practice.



As it was necessary to have every result and every process for 

each level to finalize styles of auditing, I left this until last 

and here it is.



Please note that none of these styles violate the auditing comm 

cycle or the TRs.





L. RON HUBBARD

Founder



LRH:jw.rd.gm



