Patricia Krenik-Tips for Auditors

From Scientolipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Patricia Krenik-Tips for Auditors
Topic Getting Tech In: Tips for Auditors
Author Patricia Krenik
Type of Article Category:Property "Is type of article" (as page type) with input value "Category:" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.
Social Media

Getting Tech In: Tips for Auditors

File: Hat Write Up

For those who don’t know me, my name is Patricia Krenik, and most people know me by Pat. I am a Founding Scientologist, 1951 a certificate that of all the certificates I am most proud. Coming in so early in the game has given me a unique perspective. I have followed the “experimental route” as well as “standard tech.” Most of my tech I learned the hard way, starting with Book One auditing and ending as a NOTs auditor and C/S.

There are areas in tech that may seem contrary, such as E-Meter drills telling what an instant read is and the HCOB “Unreading Questions and Items” saying under “What is a Read” that a read is a sf or better. To clarify these points, you wouldn’t want to run a major subjective action without a sf or better. A major action is a process to change the case. You wouldn’t list a question that wasn’t reading per the above HCOB.

But cases have to be set up. In the Technical Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology set up is just making sure the pc is f/ning at start of session. Probably it would be better so say that a pc properly set up for a major action will f/n at start of session, unless something has just happened that requires a rud to be flown.

So now we get to setting up a pc for a major action. This covers a wide area, from life repair to auditing repair. The important point is that what we are trying to do before any major action is to get rudiments in. All repair really is, is getting rudiments in on a given area or areas.

While it is true that you can’t audit a pc on anything over an ARCx, and must, if he has one, handle that by assessing and indicating the charge, LRH clearly states that on BPC assessment lists (this would cover every major correction list) that you handle every reaction on the meter.

A large percentage of repair may consist of repair lists, particularly on a pc who has much auditing. Therefore when assessing a list Method 3 (handling each read as it shows up) you must not ignore your stops, ticks, change of needle pattern, instant f/n and so on. Anything defined as an Instant Read in the Book of E-meter Drills should be taken up. Quote from HCOB of 7 September 1964 Issue II—All Levels, PTPs, Overts and ARC Breaks—“A by-passed charge assessment is auditing because you clean every tick of the needle on the list being assessed.”

Especially if you are auditing upper levels such as NOTs and using a correction list do not go by any instant change in the needle. Take it up—even a stop on a rise—It may turn out to be nothing, but more often than not the pre-ot will spot something and it will move from a flick on the needle to big blowdown, f/n.

In this case, bypassing it will have left charge on the case. LRH states in HCB 23 May 1962, E-Meter Reads, Prepchecking, How Meters get Invalidated, that it is “fatal” to pass an instant reaction on a pc and may cancel further reads.

To take this to absurdum, you are a student auditor running a correction list and the question “has a withhold been missed” is seen to rock slam. You ignore it. Didn’t LRH say that a tick or stop is not a read? That a read is a sf, f, lf, or lfbd or better? (Ref: Unreading Questions and Items HCOB) So you blithely ignore that rock slam and go on a few more lines. Suddenly the pc has a new gleam in his eye and his target is you. Hate oozes out of his pours and he is really upset. Don’t be tempted at this point to break the Auditor’s Code and explain that the HCOB said that only SF or better were considered reads and you did nothing wrong or you could wind up with the pc flying at you over the auditing table.

The reactive mind is nothing to fool with.

There are those who will read this and protest that I am giving verbal data. In rebuff, per HCO PL 9 Feb79 Issue II, “How to Defeat Verbal Tech” #3 “if you can’t understand it, clarify it.”

There can appear to be contrary data written by LRH, but mostly when that occurs a person trained to a higher level can see how it fits with the overall tech. I truly believe that new students need to have the above clarified; otherwise the analyzer is jammed.

It isn’t fair to a new person in training to have contrary data, or for him to simply throw out all he learned in the E-meter Drills as “cancelled.” If he applies “What is a Read” to rudiments instead of major actions he will soon have pcs who stop running well, or don’t make gains.

This is my contribution to KSW.

Patricia Krenik

September 3, 2012