Auditing Experiences

[Mark A. Baker]

That's a very valid point. Alas, auditing obviously has that effect on some people yet far from all. If more people had that experience, more people would also want and continue to be Scientologists and accept the awkwardness of the CoS organization.

This gives some indication that auditing appeals to some specific personality types and not to others, which in turn weakens the effectiveness of the phenomenon of auditing itself. Its inductive reasoning.

If something works, its supposed to work without condition. Auditing works for some because they want it to work, they expect if to work, they need it to work. A placebo effect without a pill.

Or a different viewpoint: the climate for auditing in the church has deteriorated so badly since the well-trained old timers left in the '80s that there are many more dissatisfied pcs as a result of poor tech & hostile environments.


Mark A. Baker

 

[nw2394]

Basically, once you entered the Church- what in your previous life changed?

My previous life had been based on what I quickly came to regard as an erroneous consideration about the rest of humanity - consequently within weeks I decided to restart my life in a new direction completely.

What was your auditing experience like?

Properly done auditing sessions vary - some are OK - some brilliant - and some rock you to the very core of your soul (for want of a better way of putting it!)

What level were you able to attain?

In the CoS - Clear. In the FZ, OTIII - lots of hours of NOTs, L11, and a large chunk out of L10 - though I am getting to the point where I don't think these labels serve much purpose.

Some people say there are many negatives that go along with auditing- would you agree, or disagree?

Basically disagree. Auditing can be done poorly or even with the deliberate intent to screw someone over. In the latter case it is definitely a case of deliberate malpractice by someone somewhere along the line - not the basic auditing which is at fault. Poor or no results seem to disappear when the person finds a better auditor.

There are discussions that occur between people in the freezone and independent field as to the merits of one case approach over another - and the higher you go up the "Bridge" the stronger these discussions get. But I am not sure it is worth getting into the merits of such discussions here.

Since your original wording was about brainwashing - I'd defintely disagree with that.

Nick

 

[Veda]

Roland you make it sound like a drug! LOL

Yes, auditing when well done is quite an amazing thing. Far too little of it is actually done. As you said, the price of it is prohibitive of really digging in and getting things handled. Co-auditing is a good way to go if you have a competent partner to do it with.

Roland's ami's account, IMO, is a bit problematic, since he seems to be associated with the Standard tech Freezone, and the "Xenu-era Bridge," and somehow any accounts of auditing tend (not always) to become exercises in PR for the Freezone by such persons. (Sorry, that's my observation.)

And, yes, it does, in some places, "sound like a drug," and that's part of the problem. When is auditing looking and sorting out, and when is "auditing" being told - or being in the sway of a highly suggestive environment/context/manipulative procedure - and being (albeit) seemingly happily the effect to that suggestion/manipulative procedure?

There is mind-manipulation in the 'Church" of Scientology, and - to a lesser extent - in the "Standard Tech Freezone," and, IMO, it's not just the positive results of auditing that keeps a person in. Many factors keep a person 'in."

Certainly, the genuine positives are a factor, but definitely not the only one. And for some it is fear that keeps them in, and for others, trust and gullibility that keeps them going, and keeps them continuing to pay for their next intensive.

This is the difficulty with almost anything "Scientological." It's a mixed bag - by design. It's not just "the organization." It is also the subject.

It's somewhat complicated, as a topic.

 

[nw2394]

That's a very valid point. Alas, auditing obviously has that effect on some people yet far from all. If more people had that experience, more people would also want and continue to be Scientologists and accept the awkwardness of the CoS organization.

This gives some indication that auditing appeals to some specific personality types and not to others, which in turn weakens the effectiveness of the phenomenon of auditing itself. Its inductive reasoning.

If something works, its supposed to work without condition. Auditing works for some because they want it to work, they expect if to work, they need it to work. A placebo effect without a pill.

When did you get this auditing? I noticed you said something about being in from the mid 70s - but that was your parents I understood from your original post on this board.

Standards have been slipping over the years in the CoS. Frankly, these days, they'd have to pay me to come and answer their questions, so I can potentially see how you've come to your conclusions. But what they are selling these days isn't auditing - in fact in some cases it is a gross perversion of it.

Nick

 

[nw2394]

Roland's ami's account, IMO, is a bit problematic, since he seems to be associated with the Standard tech Freezone, and the "Xenu-era Bridge,"...

Have you actually bothered to do OT2 and 3?

I read recently that LH didn't. Very easy to be critical of pretty much anything in the self improvement field you haven't given an honest attempt at.

Nick

 

[Veda]

Have you actually bothered to do OT2 and 3?

I read recently that LH didn't. Very easy to be critical of pretty much anything in the self improvement field you haven't given an honest attempt at.

Nick

Yes.

However, I managed to pull the Hubbo-implant out of my neck.

Jealous?

 

[nw2394]

Yes.

However, I managed to pull the Hubbo-implant out of my neck.

Jealous?

No. Just wondering what charges your battery...

Nick

 

[Holden Caulfield]

When did you get this auditing? I noticed you said something about being in from the mid 70s - but that was your parents I understood from your original post on this board.

Standards have been slipping over the years in the CoS. Frankly, these days, they'd have to pay me to come and answer their questions, so I can potentially see how you've come to your conclusions. But what they are selling these days isn't auditing - in fact in some cases it is a gross perversion of it.

Nick

I grew up in Scientology and did courses when I was a kid. As I grew up, things happened that made me stray away from it but I was still a believer.

When I decided to pick up auditing I was in my late teens, this was about ten years ago, and it was with a Field Group, so little or no connection with the actual CoS itself, beacuse I was already at that time upset about experiences I had had in the Scientology milleu.

While it may be like you say that standard has been slipping, what I wrote in my previous post is still my reality. My auditor was/is an awarded ClassVIII Field Auditor with IHELP, more than 25 years experience. He's considered one of the absolute best in the field. He still couldn't crack my case.

On another note, maybe the effect of auditing simply isn't aligned with what I was led to believe growing up, so there is a clash in reality. Perhaps I'll give it another try someday, but I'm guessing I'll be even a harder nut since by then I have started to reject the idea of spirituality completely.

One has to recognize that a faith in spirituality is the basic premise of auditing. But subjective experiences simply isn't proof enough for me, I need something more.

 

[nw2394]

While it may be like you say that standard has been slipping, what I wrote in my previous post is still my reality.

I am not saying it isn't - what you experienced is what you experienced.

but I'm guessing I'll be even a harder nut since by then I have started to reject the idea of spirituality completely.

I find that quite sad. Good luck with life anyway.

Nick

 

[lionheart]

Or a different viewpoint: the climate for auditing in the church has deteriorated so badly since the well-trained old timers left in the '80s that there are many more dissatisfied pcs as a result of poor tech & hostile environments.


Mark A. Baker

Yes, but surely you are not saying that before the 80's there weren't also a large number of disatisfied pcs?

I don't wish to argue about percentages here but we have to stay real.

In the 70's there were huge numbers of people who dropped out during or after intro services and courses. Some won and moved on to auditing, many of those quietly dropped out, became inactive or just quietly avoided being regged for more auditing. Call-ins to the ARCXen field were a constant reality to attempt to get people back on the Bridge. Those in training tended to persist longer, but many many trained auditors also stopped auditing in the 70's.

That is how it was then.

Central files in the orgs were full of scientologists who dropped out at some point along the way.

 

[alex]

An observation....after reading some of these recent posts is that auditing requires a lot of the person being audited, participation, interest etc.

No one can be helped just by sitting there.

"Receiving" auditing is hard work, and the gains are proportional to how much a person digs into themselves and risks and confronts and opens up and trusts etc.

My opinion.

alex

 

[Marie]

I am full of questions this evening

Did anyone live in Church 'community' ? Could you describe your experience there?

My parents were on staff when I was very little, we lived in a "staff house" for about 1 1/2 years. During this time my dad was on staff at foundation org, my mom was for a bit, they seperated then my mom was gone for about 1 year... Grundy (who is my brother) won't remember this, this was right after he was born.

As children we were expected to take care of ourselves, now I am talking I was 5 and my older brother was 3 my baby brother (Grundy) newborn to a year. My baby brother was not expected to take care of himself (I think my dad had someone else watch him). But the staff that took care of us while my dad worked (then went on staff on evenings and weekends) pretty much didn't take care of us... When we were hungry I would raid the kitchen for whatever I would find (by the way raw potatos and catfood suck). When it was bedtime we were locked into the room with the light off, I was afraid of the dark til I was 35. Anyway enough ranting.

When I finally said something to my dad... He changed who watched us, not in the house, to his credit he didn't think his kids should be treated that way. When my mom came back, we moved.

I joined the Sea Org in my late teens, I lived in a small room with 5 other girls (I was lucky, alot of rooms the same size had 9), ate in a large room with other staff, did not have anything really to do with my family (but I did call my dad every 3 or 4 weeks, my grandma every month or so, etc. This was probably not ok, but this was my family).

We worked seven days a week, 9am to 10:45pm mon - fri, 9am to 10 pm saturday, 9amto 6 pm within this time, breaks (sometimes) for lunch and dinner, worked later on Weds nite, and suppossed to get 12 1/2 hours study or auditing - that rarely happened.

Suprising thing, though the staff spent so much time together, no good friends... Talking for the sake of making connections while on staff would be discouraged, plus you stand to be disciplined for anything that was considered "out ethics" told to another staff. You sort of get a pananoid air with this going on.

fraternizing with public is considered not ok.

But it wasn't all bad.... But it wasn't all good either.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

An observation....after reading some of these recent posts is that auditing requires a lot of the person being audited, participation, interest etc.

No one can be helped just by sitting there.

"Receiving" auditing is hard work, and the gains are proportional to how much a person digs into themselves and risks and confronts and opens up and trusts etc.

My opinion.

alex

What you're basically saying here is that one needs to beleive in the efficiency of auditing for auditing to have an effect. Participating and opening up then means trusting in the process, which is entirely faith based. As I said, this counters every logical principle. If something works, it works because it works, not because of faith in that it works.

 

[Marie]

What you're basically saying here is that one needs to beleive in the efficiency of auditing for auditing to have an effect. Participating and opening up then means trusting in the process, which is entirely faith based. As I said, this counters every logical principle. If something works, it works because it works, not because of faith in that it works.

Not to but in... Because I basically feel the same about most things, however some things don't work unless you have faith in them.

Like, people do better healing if they can maintain a positive attitude, but it requires faith in this to make it work - to get the positive attitude.

 

[alex]

What you're basically saying here is that one needs to beleive in the efficiency of auditing for auditing to have an effect. Participating and opening up then means trusting in the process, which is entirely faith based. As I said, this counters every logical principle. If something works, it works because it works, not because of faith in that it works.

Well the faith is in yourself, auditing is a process of looking at yourself with the help of someone. All they do is ask questions. It is the degree that you put in the effort to look within yourself for answers that determine the benefit.

The benefit is subjective, and there are no wrong answers.

Have you ever had a good conversation with someone who really listened and understood what you were saying? That is what auditing is like, with the addition that the person listening can also help you look at areas of your own life that perhaps you hadn't noticed.

The auditor and the e-meter do nothing but help guide what you look at about your life. It is the person doing the looking that has the hard job, and it works to the extent that the person does the looking.

No one else knows you like you, or has the access to you like you.

IMO

alex

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Not to but in... Because I basically feel the same about most things, however some things don't work unless you have faith in them.

Like, people do better healing if they can maintain a positive attitude, but it requires faith in this to make it work - to get the positive attitude.

I disagree. I have very good grades in school. It's because I do the required readings and assigments, even if I think they are boring as hell. It has nothing to do with a positive attiude. The effort put into the work is equal to the result, plain and simple.

Auditing doesn't work that way because it is based simply on faith, there is no workable method behind it, at elast not one that is applicable to all. It works for people who want it to work.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Auditing doesn't work that way because it is based simply on faith, there is no workable method behind it, at elast not one that is applicable to all. It works for people who want it to work.

Sorry, Holden, that's your "faith".

My experience: it has worked well for nearly 30 years with me and I never expected a thing from it. Similarly with those whom I have had the pleasure of assisting over the years. Several have had no belief in it whatsoever, to the point of absolute disbelief, and yet they nevertheless experienced good wins.

It's too bad you consider you never received any benefit from it. It leaves me wondering what you were actually exposed to in the name of "auditing".


Mark A. Baker

 

[Marie]

Sorry, Holden, that's your "faith".

My experience: it has worked well for nearly 30 years with me and I never expected a thing from it. Similarly with those whom I have had the pleasure of assisting over the years. Several have had no belief in it whatsoever, to the point of absolute disbelief, and yet they nevertheless experienced good wins.

It's too bad you consider you never received any benefit from it. It leaves me wondering what you were actually exposed to in the name of "auditing".


Mark A. Baker

I think you get what you put in, how willing you are to follow directions of the auditor... Sometimes the auditor is not good at what they do... I experienced that, but as SO I didn't get much so I can't really say whether I believe it works or not.... :confused2: 12 1/2 hours, right

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I think you get what you put in, how willing you are to follow directions of the auditor... Sometimes the auditor is not good at what they do... I experienced that, but as SO I didn't get much so I can't really say whether I believe it works or not.... :confused2: 12 1/2 hours, right

Quality of auditor can make a HUGE difference. That's one more way you S.O. folk were routinely screwed.

I was fortunate in that for most of my lower bridge I had an outstanding, experienced, OT auditor. He could handle a "difficult pc" like myself absolutely smoothly. This was at my local mission.

The auditor has since joined the S.O. and gone on to a high position in that organization. I'm glad he has been awarded a measure of recognition. Although I can't help wishing he'd get himself & his family out.

I was doubly fortunate in that I never experienced a truly bad auditor. The worst I had was decidedly "lower mediocre". He was at an org in LA. He got the job done, but fairly slowly & ineptly. Quite annoying after the high standard of quality I was used to from the local mission.

I also had some middling auditors at the local mission. They were fine, although a bit of a come down from my regular auditor. One of my favorite actions, HRD, was largely handled by one such auditor. She was "good", although not "great". Some of my finest gains, although not the "finest" sessions. That was the Mayo version of the HRD, of course.

Also had some fine auditors in the freezone, although since clear most of my auditing has been solo.


Mark A. Baker