welcome-image-wide
blog-header

By Tom Martiniano

I was the Qual Sec AOLA in 1980/81 and without many staff. So this also made me the Intern Supervisor for the Class VIII Course Held From Above (HFA).  This is also called the “Silver Cert Internship “ in which the best Class VIII auditors on the planet were made. And I was only a lowly Level Two classed auditor at the time.  Talk about baptism by fire.  But I was a seasoned cramming officer and confessional auditor with my basics totally in. My metering and TRs were honed to perfection and I could make a meter read when it should.

One day Manu Tupou, an actor from Hollywood came to see him in his office. His father was the king of the Fiji Islands, so he was royalty. He was also a regular cop on the original Hawaii 5-0 TV Series.  He said “I’ve been a Class VIII for five years now and I haven’t been auditing, in fact I am afraid to audit.  Can you help me?” 

I tell you, when it rains it pours; a Class VIII auditor who is afraid to audit but wants help. Well, I can never turn down helping another, especially when I have the wherewithal –and- I am Italian and when an Italian does you a favor you are expected to pay it back, so I hatched a plan right then and there.  I took him in an auditing room and held up a doll and held the cans for reads. “Fly the dolls ruds” I commanded.  Manu swallowed hard and started with the ARC Break rud and by the time he was done I said: “Pretty bad Manu. Your TRs suck, your basics are in horrible shape and your metering is nuts. The good news is that you want to do something about it.”  Manu went VGIs and said, “Tom, I really do want to do something about it. I want to be a great auditor.”  I thought again for a moment and then I said, “Alright, I have a deal for you.  You give me 6 hours per day. I will put you in the HGC and you will audit 6 hours per day. The C/S will write crams on you and I will do them on you.  Your exchange for making you into a Class VIII LRH would be proud of is you auditing your ass off in our HGC.  Do we have a deal?”  Manu beamed.  “I love it. Can we start tomorrow?”  “No, we start today.” Both of us laughed and then I personally delivered him to the D of P and off we went.  

I knew it would be simple and that I would first correct his TRs, then his metering and then basics and he will be top notch.  It wasn’t long before we were on a TRs retread and I slammed this mans TRs home so that he was as natural as Robert Redford.  Then we worked on his metering. Manu was completely blown out on how simple it was to fix him.  He was winning and was disseminating what was going on. The next thing I knew was that I had five more Class VIIIs auditing in the HGC on the same deal I had Manu on.  It was a dream come true that I actually had a bit of an internship going on these guys. They all loved getting the tune-up and showed up on time every day and were the best students I ever had.  I added a lot more to their programs because they were VIII’s so we not only perfected their TRs Metering and basics, but we also made them hounds for Standard Tech.  They all graduated in three months and came to help at AOLA whenever we had backlogs. We were all good friends and we remained in comm. All of them opened up a field practice and audited hundreds of hours in the field.  Look at the amount of lives that were touched or changed by this cycle of action.

The long and the short of it was that I not only resurrected 6 Class VIII’s but all of the pc’s that got real standard auditing was making a difference in the OT Solo area. Now we were getting a lot of clears sorted out and onto the OT Sections.

Lana is one hundred percent dead on. We all learned how to audit by auditing. It is perfectly okay to screw up and flub and all that. No one is going to get hurt. Not for long anyhow.  We can make auditors by the hundreds, and good ones. All it takes is the big three in: TRs, Metering, Basics. I can put anyone’s TRs in in just a few days. Metering is simple: Drill, drill, drill. Basics are slammed in by reading and then drilling them. 

What the Church is making right now is robots who have all but quit auditing. Listen to the tapes on LRH auditing and you will hear a real thetan being in comm with another thetan. It is not hard: It is A, R and C.

Steve, we’ll win to the degree we deliver tech. So let’s start!

ML Tom

Comments   

 
Ralph Hilton
+4 # Ralph Hilton 2013-04-03 15:42
Brilliant words! I think the difference between an excellent auditor and a mediocre one is totally in a certainty of the tech.
An excellent auditor doesn't sit in front of the PC wondering if the tech will work. He sits there in total certainty that the PC will come out beaming. You certainly appear to have that certainty!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
calvin b. duffield
+2 # calvin b. duffield 2013-04-03 16:47
I absolutely agree with you, Ralph! And the truth, as you, Tom, Lana and Silvia have said, is just the big three; TR's,metering and the basics. That's it!
The total power of that Simplicity, seems to be the hardestlesson to get duplicated & understood.

Tom's approach probably works best,by the sounds of it.

Magnifico, Tom!

ML, Calvin.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Ingrid Smith
+6 # Ingrid Smith 2013-04-03 18:17
Well done Tom!!!! I was reading C/S series 2 and here are some things he has to say in it and to validate your actions:
To C/S one has to accept the following facts:

1.Dianetics and Scientology work.

2.The subjects are serious subjects, not experimental toys.

3. The basics and fundamentals are stated early in the period of development and have not changed.

4.The 'newest and latest" is usually a recovery of basics and better statements of them.

8.That the Classification and Gradation Chart, and all it's processes and steps, IS the basic program of any case.

10.That there is no hidden data line and that the materials and procedures are refined mainly to facilitate use and communication of them

There are a total of 15 points-

he ends the HCOB with "It took too many trillions to find this road for it to be neglected. For if the C/S neglects it, people won't arrive anywhere but lost as well"

Thank you Tom for holding the fort on this and really illuminating the basics so well.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Chris Mann
+5 # Chris Mann 2013-04-03 20:23
Tom audited me from about six inches underground to Grade II after I left the Church.
I had some concept of what a good auditor would be like. Enough so that I knew my auditing in the Church was not that. The last thing I did was a sec check, and then when I was excited to be using the remaining intensives to do some auditing they started another sec check. When I queried it the CS R-Factor was "some people just need more sec checks".

Well, Tom cleaned that and other stuff up with a repair list and then I got some real auditing which actually did fit that concept I had of what ideal auditing should be like.

One funny thing is that Tom and Linda, because they have so much experience I guess, can be an org. I mean, the two of them just sitting at the kitchen table are more of an org than a Class V Church org.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
SKM
+2 # SKM 2013-04-04 04:42
Your last sentence makes me smile.
I can imagine it's true.
:-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Ralph Hilton
+2 # Ralph Hilton 2013-04-05 15:41
I remember on the Apollo often having sessions in small cramped spaces with barely room to swing a rat let alone a cat. I often did my Solo sessions in a storage closet up on the port side. I liked that closet as it was only 20 meters from where LRH usually sat in his research room.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
steve spargo
+2 # steve spargo 2013-04-03 21:05
Yes, auditors are made in the chair. That's a brilliant story Tom and very inspirational. No matter what we do in life, we still have to get ourselves in the chair and make ourselves into great auditors.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Chris Mann
0 # Chris Mann 2013-04-03 21:18
I just wanted to add a thought to my sec check comment. I had a number of sec-checks starting with a couple when I joined staff in the 90s as the DSA in Phx. Then another when I went to Flag for staff training. When I was a public I ended up paying a big chunk of money (for me) for some intensives I thought would take me up the bridge a bit.

First I did my leaving staff sec-check which apparently is free for one intensive. What happened is that I really didnt have much to do on it and I cleared that off and felt good about it well under an intensive. However, I didnt know that the auditor was bypassing FN's. This is deadly, as I experienced. I started doubting my self and my own fn's. I would feel great, obviously FN'ing and I would look at the auditor who would look at the meter, wait a while and then continue clearing up that read. That sucks. I don't know if you guys have experienced that, but it sucks, especially over and over as you dig further and further into your case to find some answer that isnt there. It blows, (in a bad way, not the Scn definition) :).

So I think that ate up a couple intensives. Then I guess at the end I wasnt VGI's about it so my next CS was another sec check. In my core I was so pissed I could spit, but I suppressed that and ground away for another couple intensives.

When Tom started auditing me it took me a bit to get that back, just knowing what an FN is. I would feel one coming on and Tom would say "Your needle is floating" oddly enough.

I actually got more case gain from cleaning that up in a correction list than from doing the sec-checks.

So that is the kind of stuff the Church is delivering. This was from I believe a Class V auditor and a GAT Flag Trained C/S.

Also, I dont know if this was even the biggest outpoint in that auditing. There was other stuff, but I have said enough.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Lana M
+4 # Lana M 2013-04-03 22:23
Chris,
I saddens me to hear that you experienced what you did. When I was routing out of the Sea Org, I had a sec check I was to get through (I was on the RPF) and though it was not a long sec check in terms of questions, I was on it for literally months. The end rudiments of the sec check had to be video'd and the FNs passed by someone at Int. My video went up and back more than 10 times. Each time I would be told that the FNs were not OK and the end ruds had to be checked again, on video, and resubmitted. My auditor was changed 3 times during the process -- each one redoing the same questions, on video, over and over again.

The bypassed charge that built up was such that on the last rejected video I stormed out of PAC and walked almost the whole way to the HGB, with 2 security guards, several RPFers and the RPF I/C all trying to get me to turn around and go back.

To continue to recheck the same questions, and invalidate the FNs, and recheck the same questions repeatedly -- is out-tech. It is what I call Reverse Scientology -- using the tech to harm, oppress and spin someone in. It is suppressive use of a meter and a process which is supposed to help a person.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Chris Mann
+2 # Chris Mann 2013-04-04 01:42
Yeah, thats the next level of suppression some of you Sea Org guys got. That is genuine SP stuff there.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Ralph Hilton
+1 # Ralph Hilton 2013-04-05 15:46
There is a Flag Order written by LRH that says that when anyone requests to leave the Sea Org they should be out within 24 hours. back in 1982 I was told to co-audit my leaving sec check with someone else who was leaving! It took about a month to finally route out and get my SP declare anyway. I gather I got away fairly lightly compared to later stories I hear.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Espiritu
+2 # Espiritu 2013-04-04 04:24
Chris, Lana. I had the same experience in the same decade. Same Dixie-Whistling squirrel F/N abuse.I didn't know for sure what was happening either. Just felt like sh-- and felt like I was losing gains for the first time ever. Karen cleaned me up the same way...standard tech of all things! She just started actually indicating actual F/Ns when I F/Ned....and they got wider and wider and wider! Pretty soon I was a "cadilac PC" again. Didn't take long. Seemed so simple. Like hving a conversation with an old friend. Now that past suppressive use of metering is like a bad dream that forgot to happen. It's gone. Hurray for LRH and standard tech and the skilled touch of well-trained auditor.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Silvia
+3 # Silvia 2013-04-04 07:33
Tom, great points. Ingrid, perfect quotes from C/S 2. And as you can see Chris and Espiritu regained their wins with simple standard tech.
That is the point SIMPLE BASICS - put in with ARC by a good C/S, Supervisor or Cram Off does wonders for the willing auditor to do it well, and at the end, he will do it well.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Nickname
+2 # Nickname 2013-04-04 10:01
Radical view here. I don't want my TR's put in, I don't want them 'slammed in' and I don't want to be 'made'. I want a course room where I can study the materials without being bothered, and when I make a mistake on a PC I want someone who can pick me up off the floor, brush me off, clarify the mistake, and write a C/S to fix it. I audit only because I want to - don't get in my way, please. The finest works man has ever produced are done with true heart and feeling, with immeasurable faith, and not with 'slamming'. One cannot 'force' careful work. The greatest mistakes made in the Co$ have been 'slammed' in, and PC's, students, staff, and potential auditors fled in DROVES, by the thousands. Today the only thing keeping anyone there is threat of denial. All talk about "putting in" "slamming" "making" and so on are to me like four-letter words at a dinner table. Get on YouTube and pull up a video of a performance by a cellist, violinist, pianist, and tell me how they "slam" anything. Sure there were thousands of hours of study, and with each hour the fineness increased, the feeling got bigger, and the understanding greater. The instrument was there all along (crafted with great care), perfectly willing. The musician coaxed the music from it. If you teach a student roughly, then that student will audit roughly, and you won't get gains. Scientology is peace, not war. Some of the best TR's are nothing more than a whispered, "I got it". Or a very quiet, "What did you do there (?)." Create that peace, and people will come in to be there for that alone.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Lana M
+4 # Lana M 2013-04-04 15:25
Nickname -- you make such a good observation. Not radical actually -- just very sane.

You cannot "slam" in someone's TRs. TRs are all about being there. You cannot slam, force, demand someone to be there. It just cannot be done!

Further -- you cannot slam in someone's ethics. How many times have we heard the term "SRA" (severe reality adjustment)? Ethics is a personal thing. The only way you can get someone to move up the conditions is to get them to recognize there is an unhandled condition, and get them to willing look at and apply conditions to better their own scene. You cannot slam them through this. You cannot bash, force or even blackmail someone to do this. It just doesn't work.

You can thank David Miscavige for the whole concept of slamming anything. He loves the term. He also loves to throw people against walls, or get others to do it for him. He loves the use of force to get compliance.It just ain't Scientology.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
calvin b. duffield
+2 # calvin b. duffield 2013-04-04 15:37
Nickname, First off, I really duplicate your point of view, and your sensitivity is quite noticeable in your comments.

However, while I am an artist by profession, and therefore, necessarily in touch with "vibes" and emotions, and I'm sure you appreciate these elements need to be understood by anyone to communicate effectively in the arts, of every kind.

It can be pretty useful to use the tools of differentiation, if one wishes to truly distinguish "intent" from apparency
as I'm sure you will agree.

For me personally, at age 65, I spent the first 64 years in a frame of mind that can only be described (and in fact often were - by others!)--as being TOO serious!

Well, I will tell you, Nickname, that I finally woke up and realized this little
Gem of advice "stop taking everything too seriously -- lighten up, learn to laugh, especially at one's self, and rediscover that life is actually a lot of fun when you do!" In fact I even worked out a bit
of an "axiom" that helped me keep all of this in perspective, and helped others in spotting (and handling) their own "seriousness"

seriousness = inflow = mass = downtone

laughter = outflow = lightness = uptone

Check out Mark Shreffler's video " The Tone Scale Seminar " to appreciate the value of all this.

Finally, if you have managed to get any of my ramblings, here, I would just like to request that you also consider the ARC
inherent with the post by Tom Martiniano,
which I believe you were referring to. I think that you will find an enormous amount of pure intention to HELP, along with equally enormous ARC there, too,
if I'm not mistaken.

I hope you have you are able to have some
realizations of your own about the "seriousness" of it all!

Calvin.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Jim Logan
+4 # Jim Logan 2013-04-04 16:37
Nick,
“The dominating factor of tech being in, is whether the auditor really wants to do
a good job and help the pc. It is a matter of professional competence and pride.
If the auditor does not have this there is no amount of rules, reading or supervision that will bring about technical successes.

“Fortunately the vast majority of auditors have a high professional conscience and are willing to study, drill and do everything possible to perfect their tech. The Course Supervisor, the D of P. the C/S and Qual Cramming terminals must realize
this and must do all possible to fortify it and must abstain from invalidations and accusations and injustices which tend to nullify it.

“From this springboard of belief in the auditor and a willingness on the part of
those training and handling him, to strengthen the auditor’s determination to be professionally competent, in-tech will only then blossom in an org.”

L. RON HUBBARD
HCOB 22 Jan 77, IN TECH, THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE IT
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Chris Mann
+1 # Chris Mann 2013-04-04 17:05
I think you are using a different definition. I just took that it meant fast, accurate, effective etc. I really don't think Tom was suggesting a SRA-type handling for students.

I get what you're saying though. When I was at Flag as a Class V staff the environment in the OOT (Outer Org Trainee) program was terrible. Stuff like staying late and scrubbing toilets if you are behind target(unrealistic targets too). I used to sneak up to the SHSBC courseroom and study because it was peaceful there and the sups had ARC.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
steve spargo
+3 # steve spargo 2013-04-04 22:52
These discussions raise interesting questions about how you can best help someone achieve his goals.

I well remember my first TRs course in the late 70's. I explained to my Sup why it was completely natural for someone to fall asleep when forced to sit still for long periods (ie. 5 minutes). My sup just smiled his broad smile and said "Trust me - just do it!"

A few hours later, thanks to his insistence, I woke up in a different and vastly better place - present time.

There is no doubt that my Sup deserves some credit for the achievement.
When I look back on learning to play the piano, the weekly insistence and encouragement from my teacher also deserves credit for what I achieved.
The same with my various squash coaches I had.

If left to my own devices, I doubt I would have done as well as I did in these areas.

All these reflections lead me to an observation that the people that I consider helped me the most were the ones that pushed me the hardest.

How does that reconcile with this idea that force should never be used?

I don't think it does. I think the key principle is that if you are going to help, then your efforts should be aligned with what the pupil wants to achieve. Then judgement is required as to how much force should be applied. Perhaps just an encouraging smile (ie. little force) or yelling out loudly to "bloody well finish that last lap" (ie. more force).

Someone said that the British didn't want to bathe because the Romans did a lot of it and they didn't like the Romans. I don't know if that's true. But I notice some are making a similar mistake about the Church of Scientology. Just because the Church used force in a very insane way, it does not mean that all force is bad. It does not mean that the result of using force is always an ARC break.

We shouldn't be afraid of using force. That's my point.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Ingrid Smith
+2 # Ingrid Smith 2013-04-05 00:22
Steve,
I'm with you on force- This is a force universe and we have to confront force to deal with it and eventually to get out of it. Just like anything,force can be used or abused.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Ralph Hilton
0 # Ralph Hilton 2013-04-05 15:54
Well the British don't smell as bad as the Romans did. England is cold and one can skip a bath for a few days there but Rome is rather hot.
LRH pointed out in the PDC tapes that this is a universe of force. The problem with the force used in the CofS is not the force but the negative emotion added to it. Force is essential to survival. Enthetans give force a bad name.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
1984
0 # 1984 2013-04-13 12:48
What was it, something like 'Rightness is the correct estimate of force plus intelligence'?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Tom M
+6 # Tom M 2013-04-05 09:31
Okay, Okay. One errant phrase that could have been misinterpreted was and created a whole hoo-ha. When I say "slammed in" I meant drilled until they were perfect. And with a ton of ARC. This is what these auditors wanted. They wanted to be the best. Now, if you got from my comm that I was mean or cruel then you missed the absolute rest of what I was saying and focused on one word. Was all of this borne from an MU? Possibly. So in case it was here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition of the word "slam" that I was using: "In Bridge and other whist-derived card games, the winning of all tricks." Also like a "grand-slam homerun". There is no evilness there, just a complete cleaning of the bases. A "slam" in tennis? He/she won all of the sets. Was anyone hurt? I could go on. And just so you know, these auditors loved what I did with them and thanked me forever for it. It was all borne love and ARC and I will not let that get besmirched by a misunderstood. You missed the point of hundreds of PCs getting the greatest auditing they could possibly get as a result of this work and yet the word slam got focused on. Unbelievable.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Nickname
+2 # Nickname 2013-04-05 11:42
Tom, Since I'm the one who 'complained' ... I'm sure you were effective as you describe in meeting the students' needs and desires, curiosities, and there was a lot more going on there than just TRs, I'm sure! As-is-ing goodness is a common error. Validations to you on the good work you did. My impulse and covert intent was to flow with that and further the idea of a "kinder, gentler, Scn" if you will. That could apply across the board in small ways which trigger (perhaps) better ideas about Scn and the beneficence that it really is. Why not say "understand someone" (every now and then) instead of "handle someone"? "Calm down" instead of "get your TRs in"? People do notice this, and find things like "body routing" kind of, ahem ... "curious". If one is to be above board, then why not "dragged someone in off the street"? The phrases "flunk" and "flub" are unobtrusive and widely used.

Lana mentioned ethics being personal, and that applies. I ended up doing a lot of TRs that were useless (got introverted on not being loud enough, crisp enough, etc.), and I got MUCH more confront gain from actually doing the courses - because that was what I needed and wanted. Problems I've run into in auditing are from Axiom of Scn #28 flubs (sooo stupid! wanna kill myself!). You probably would have noticed that, and understood. Your post is an excellent example of one central aspect of training, an excellent choice of example to make a point.

With all that verbiage above, here's what I wanted to just "slap up on the boards". Just the link, nothing else. My original word-thought was, "Here ... I'm gonna slam you with 11 minutes of real TR0!" Look at this, please, if the link posts. Just as an aside, notice the TR0's of the audience. It's a "want to". TR0 on "how the heck does she ...!" TR0 on the composition. My favorite part of every concert is listening to those guys tune up their strings in 0.5 seconds off of ONE note! You know, the damn problem with Scn is that we're all going to be artists, and that's a delicacy. It's a heck of a big reach. The amount of force required is absolutely minimal if the thought is there.

www.youtube.com/.../

"Break a leg!" (Hollywood phrase meaning, "Go get 'em, tiger!")
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
Jim Logan
+2 # Jim Logan 2013-04-05 17:08
Tom,
I understood what you posted. In the run of life, rightness is the correct estimation of effort. Backing off, or "rabbiting" from a cycle that requires a good push leaves one effect of the cycle. How much push it takes, whether that's a "light" suggestion, or "sit down, DO the drill!!" or more, is determined by how much it takes to complete it to a result. It requires an intention, and the character of that intention is how the "force" plays out.

Live communication, as it says in Axiom 51, has a "survive" or positive intention to it, and it vanquishes MEST. A succumb intention to a comm backlashes and plays into the hands of the Bank, on all flows.

It isn't the "force", it's the intention. The HCOB I posted describes the trainee's intention. Afraid to offend, scared to enforce a positive result may work on Play School, but it doesn't fly in this universe. But you have to get UP through the force bands, and then you can handle it with aplomb.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
calvin b. duffield
+1 # calvin b. duffield 2013-04-06 03:10
You've nailed it, Jim! One is inclined to to treat the "wounded", gently, as a matter of consideration. At the end of the day though, any thing short of "tough, standard
TR-s" just does not deliver the end result
-- a STANDARD, competent Auditor!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

2428898
Today
Yesterday
This Week
642
1227
1869

Subscribe!


Powered by Google FeedBurner

Easy ShareThis

This is your blog

ticket

This blog was created as a safe space where independent Scientologists can meet, talk and post.

If you fit any of the following criteria, we welcome contributions from you for this blog. Have you experienced results from Scientology

  • Auditing
  • Training
  • Knowledge

Send articles, stories or successes to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Communication

“As the only crime in the universe seems to be to communicate, and as the only saving grace of an awareness of awareness unit is to communicate, we can readily understand that an entanglement of communication is certain to result. What we should understand – and much more happily – is that it can now be resolved.”

L. Ron Hubbard
Dianetics 55!, Chapter Nine
Two-Way Communication

Help Support Us

Making Auditors

courseroom-logo

Standard Tech is alive, and ready to take you to greatness.

Learn More

Training in iScn

dan-koon

A note on training from the man who was there with LRH.

Learn More

Operating Thetan

super-barriers

Training's role in removing the counter-effort from living.

Learn More

FREE Checksheets

meter-dial

LRH Checksheets that made 1000s of successful auditors.

Download Yours